Printable Version of Topic

Pilots For 9/11 Truth Forum _ Debate _ Roosevelt Roberts Interview

Posted by: chris sarns Nov 4 2009, 09:24 AM

It's easier to put the disjointed pieces together by reading the transcript. Leaving out all the um's and searching for the right words, it breaks down like this:

Roosevelt: coming from the 27 side heading east towards DC . . . it looked like it went over on the mall entrance side and turned around . . . . the plane . . . was facing west, so it went. . . southwest away from the Pentagon. . . around the lane one area, and it was like banking just above the light poles like. It was heading . . .back across 27. . . and it looks like . . . that plane was heading . . . southwest.

http://www.atsadgrab.com/forum/thread382628/pg1

The purple-ish path is what Roosevelt surmised from what he saw - the plane flying away to the south-west.The red path combines what the north path witnesses saw and what Roosevelt saw.The radius is about 330 feet. (?)

It's unlikely that Hani chickened out at the last second so let's assume somebody in the E4B was "flying" the 757 [or 737]. Assuming no pilot, can a 757 or 737 handle the g-forces to make that turn at a speed sufficient to stay in the air while making that turn?

Posted by: Craig Ranke CIT Nov 4 2009, 01:08 PM

Your interpretation is not what he is describing. Yes he was confused regarding cardinal directions while relaying this over the phone during an off-the-cuff, surprise interview while he was driving. That is typical for any human and to be expected.

But when he used landmarks it tells a different story.

"coming from the 27 side heading east towards DC"

And then later:

It seemed like it came from, um. . . southwest-lookin- the same way it came in, or appeared that it came in, it seemed like it was southwe- (indistinguishable) came in. . . uh. . . almost like where that ne- that first plane had, um. . . flew into the, um, Pentagon right there. It- it- di- it looked like it came from that direction.

So the plane came from the alleged impact side where he thought the "first plane" "flew into the Pentagon". This is clear. Yet he called that "southwest" and the blast site is NOT southwest of him.That's because he was confused when relaying cardinal directions during an off the cuff interview which is quite normal.

No big deal.

And then when asked about where it banked the LANDMARK he used was the Mall entrance side.

Aldo: -did it look like it went out over the river, and- and kind of turned around?

Roosevelt: Um, it looked like it went over on the mall entrance side and turned around

Again that is not southwest, it is north.

We have said from day one that Roosevelt's account is not 100% clear and we regret that he clammed up after he got scared and backed out of the on-camera interview he later promised.

But for YOU to parse his words and poke holes in what is admittedly not perfect testimony can be for no other purpose but to suggest he completely fabricated his account and is LYING even though he is corroborated by ALL the north side witnesses who prove with scientific fact that the plane did not hit.

Deal with it Sarns.

The north side approach is 100% scientific proof that the plane did not cause the physical damage.

This is why no pilot, expert, researcher, or CIT detractor on earth who has ever published ANYTHING on this issue has contested this fact.

You are unreasonably scrutinizing Roosevelt's memory of what would be a VERY confusing and difficult situation to remember and relay accurately for ANYONE.

But the fact is that a flyover is 100% proven by the Citgo station witnesses alone.

Posted by: Craig Ranke CIT Nov 4 2009, 01:31 PM

You see we have no problem acknowledging that ALL witness accounts are subjective and fallible.

That's why we rely so heavily on corroboration to validate details.

Roosevelt is corroborated by Erik Dihle and ALL the north side witnesses who prove a flyover.

NONE of the witnesses are 100% correct about all details and it would be unreasonable to expect ANY of them to be.

Witnesses are not computers.

But the GENERAL fact that the plane flew north of the gas station is proven as is the GENERAL fact that the plane flew away and that the corroborated right bank had it headed towards south parking.

But we will NEVER know the exact flight path down to a mathematical level because witnesses accounts are subjective and fallible.

Stop denying the undeniable implications of this information.

The plane did not hit the building Sarns and it did NOT explode in front of the building at the bottom floor without leaving a crater in the ground or leaving large pieces of recognizable debris.

Posted by: rob balsamo Nov 4 2009, 01:35 PM

QUOTE (Craig Ranke CIT @ Nov 4 2009, 01:08 PM)

And then when asked about where it banked the LANDMARK he used was the Mall entrance side.

Aldo: -did it look like it went out over the river, and- and kind of turned around?

Roosevelt: Um, it looked like it went over on the mall entrance side and turned around

Again that is not southwest, it is north.

For some reason, CIT detractors love to ignore this point when taking such an impromptu interview so literally.

Chris, if you are going to take such an interview so literally, you need to draw a new path taking the aircraft "over on the mall entrance side" and then turn.

Bottom line, Roberts describes an aircraft flying low and away immediately after the explosion. This is cause for serious further inquiry considering all the North Flight Path independently corroborated witness statements and statements made by Eric D to the CMH also explaining an aircraft "kept flying after the explosion".

Keep in mind, if you accept the north flight path statements, any type of aircraft could have been used, including classified military technology, leaving the possibilities numerous, perhaps endless, and therefore speculation. The North approach is not limited to 757 (or 737) performance as required for the south path.

Please review this presentation...

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=15854

Posted by: chris sarns Nov 4 2009, 03:02 PM

Rob,

Thank you for your reply. You answered my question. At 14:48 in the video it establishes the north path is aerodynamically possible. The radius is 5,090 feet. However, it leaves the Pentagon on the south-EAST side headed south-EAST.

Roosevelt only saw the plane as it was flying away so he was just guessing which way it approached. [over the Mall side]

All that matters is which way it flew away.

Roosevelt said the plane flew away to the south-WEST.

Roosevelt: It was, uh. . . it was heading, um. . . back across 27. . . and it looks like. . . it appeared to me- I was in the south, and that plane was heading. . . like, um. . . southwest.

Aldo: For a quick five seconds. But you definitely- and you saw it over the south parking lot. . . over lane one?

Roosevelt: In the south- in the south parking lot over lane one.

Lane one is at the west end of the south parking lot, the Highway 27 side.

A plane on the north path could not turn and head south-west as he stated.

QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Nov 2 2009, 05:35 PM)

For some reason, CIT detractors love to ignore this point when taking such an impromptu interview so literally.

Chris, if you are going to take such an interview so literally, you need to draw a new path taking the aircraft "over on the mall entrance side" and then turn.

Bottom line, Roberts describes an aircraft flying low and away immediately after the explosion. This is cause for serious further inquiry considering all the North Flight Path independently corroborated witness statements and statements made by Eric D to the CMH also explaining an aircraft "kept flying after the explosion".

Keep in mind, if you accept the north flight path statements, any type of aircraft could have been used, including classified military technology, leaving the possibilities numerous, perhaps endless, and therefore speculation. The North approach is not limited to 757 (or 737) performance as required for the south path.

Please review this presentation...

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=15854

Posted by: Craig Ranke CIT Nov 4 2009, 03:29 PM

You are wrong Sarns.

He said it flew to the Mall entrance side after Aldo was asking him where it flew AWAY.

He described it coming FROM the alleged impact (yet mistakenly described that as being from the southwest) and banking around TO the Mall entrance (and also mistook that as being southwest).

He was clearly incorrect when relaying cardinal directions because NEITHER of those landmarks were southwest of him, while BOTH were actually north or northwest of him.

But that's ok because witnesses are subjective and typically fallible and his account of a plane flying away AT ALL supports the flyover and is corroborated by all north side approach witnesses.

Why are you accusing Roosevelt of being a liar even though he along with over a dozen north side witnesses corroborate each other proving 9/11 was an inside job?

Posted by: rob balsamo Nov 4 2009, 03:40 PM

Landmarks trump cardinal direction every time when dealing with witnesses, or even pilots, especially in an informal setting. I cant count how many times i have heard other pilots/ATC.. .etc... say southwest when they meant southeast. Northwest when they meant northeast... ."Traffic 9 O'clock" when they meant "3 o'clock"... and so on... Its an honest mistake.

Ever gotten directions from a friend? Ever heard them say "turn left" when they meant right? Or, "We are on the east side of the highway", when they really are on the west side?

To take Roberts statement of "southwest" in an interview on a cell phone while he was driving as literal.. while ignoring his landmark statements is intellectually dishonest or cherry picking to fit an already established belief/agenda.

QUOTE (chris sarns @ Nov 4 2009, 03:02 PM)

A plane on the north path could not turn and head south-west as he stated.

Sure "a plane" can. It depends on the type aircraft and perhaps any classified military technology involved.

Again,

...if you accept the north flight path statements, any type of aircraft could have been used, including classified military technology, leaving the possibilities numerous, perhaps endless, and therefore speculation. The North approach is not limited to 757 (or 737) performance as required for the south path.

(i bolded it this time as it appears you missed it the first time and in the video...)

Since Roberts refused a second meeting to clarify statements, his most important statement at this time is the fact he vividly remembers observing an aircraft immediately AFTER the explosion. This is fatal to the govt story. Some CIT detractors feel we should ignore this altogether. I understand why they feel that way. Unfortunately for the detractors, "Nothing to see here folks, move along" doesnt sit well with real truth seekers.

Posted by: chris sarns Nov 4 2009, 04:45 PM

There was a problem with communication. When Aldo asked:Aldo: Okay. Do you- do you remember which direction it was headed?

Roosevelt told him where it was coming from.Roosevelt: Uh, coming from the, uh 27 side 27 heading, uh. . . uh, east towards DC; coming from that area, uh, there's a highway.

Then he describes where it he saw it.Roosevelt: If you were to come up 395. . . uh, north heading towards the Pentagon, and you got off in south parking. . . you were like right there, 'cause 395 went right into 27. He is describing the south west corner of the south parking lot where the exit from 395 goes into the south parking lot at the south-west corner.

Aldo had to ask him again:Aldo: So from where- from where it had headed away from the Pentagon, which direction was it heading?

Roosevelt: From the w- uh, can you repeat that one more time, please?

Aldo: Yeah, when it was heading away from the Pentagon, this- this second plane,-?

Roosevelt: Right.

Aldo: -wh- do you remember which-

Roosevelt: Right.

And again:Aldo: -which direction it was heading?

Roosevelt: It was, uh. . . it was heading, um. . . back across 27. . . and it looks like. . . it appeared to me- I was in the south, and that plane was heading. . . like, um. . . southwest. . . coming out.

That's clear. The plane flew away to the south-west back across Highway 27.

* * * * *He said it flew to the Mall entrance side after Aldo was asking him where it flew AWAY.No. Aldo asked him where it turned around.Aldo: -did it look like it went out over the river, and- and kind of turned around?

Roosevelt: Um, it looked like it went over on the mall entrance side and turned around; because you've got. . . the mall there, and then- where I was, was south; and the plane,. . . from the direction it was sitting, was facing west; so it went. . . southwest away from the Pentagon.

It flew over the mall before it turned around and then headed south-west away from the Pentagon.

He described it coming FROM the alleged impact (yet mistakenly described that as being from the southwest) and banking around TO the Mall entrance (and also mistook that as being southwest).He was clearly incorrect when relaying cardinal directions because NEITHER of those landmarks were southwest of him, while BOTH were actually north or northwest of him.[i]He did not describe the impact zone or the mall as being to the south-west nor did he say banking around TO the mall.

But that's ok because witnesses are subjective and typically fallible and his account of a plane flying away AT ALL supports the flyover and is corroborated by all north side approach witnesses.He saw the plane fly away to the south-west.

Why are you accusing Roosevelt of being a liar?Quite the contrary, I'm taking his statement at face value.

Posted by: Craig Ranke CIT Nov 4 2009, 05:02 PM

QUOTE (chris sarns @ Nov 4 2009, 09:45 PM)

Why are you accusing Roosevelt of being a liar?Quite the contrary, I'm taking his statement at face value.

Ok then if you take his statement that he saw a plane AT ALL at "face value" you have no choice but to accept that he is ultimate corroboration for the flyover that has already been scientifically proven by the north side witnesses alone.

To unnecessarily scrutinize what parts of the flight path he is describing may be fallible or not has no relevance to the FACT that he saw the plane flying away at all.

Why are you so hell bent on casting doubt on this witness and what is your contention about his account if you refuse to accept the fact that he corroborates the north side witnesses who prove a flyover?

Posted by: Craig Ranke CIT Nov 4 2009, 05:05 PM

Furthermore route 27 runs north alongside north parking so even if it was banking around to the Mall entrance side as he claims it would STILL be banking around towards route 27.

Posted by: chris sarns Nov 4 2009, 05:27 PM

QUOTE (Craig Ranke CIT @ Nov 2 2009, 09:02 PM)

Ok then if you take his statement that he saw a plane AT ALL at "face value" you have no choice but to accept that he is ultimate corroboration for the flyover

NO! He is NOT corroboration, quite the contrary. He said the plane flew away to the south-west over lane one in the south west corner of the south parking lot like I drew it.

QUOTE

that has already been scientifically proven by the north side witnesses alone.

The north path witnesses do NOT prove flyover. That is based on an assumption that the plane would have to cause all the damage and that is not necessary. The other damage was caused by explosives. Your theory requires all the damage to be caused by explosives so why not just part of the damage?

QUOTE

To unnecessarily scrutinize what parts of the flight path he is describing may be fallible or not has no relevance to the FACT that he saw the plane flying away at all.

I know you would like to ignore this inconvenient truth but where and in which direction he saw it fly away proves it could not be the airplane approaching on the north path.

QUOTE

Why are you so hell bent on casting doubt on this witness

You're the one casting doubt on your own witness.

QUOTE

and what is your contention about his account if you refuse to accept the fact that he corroborates the north side witnesses who prove a flyover?

He does NOT corroborate the north flight path and the north flight path witnesses do not corroborate anything but the north flight path.

You can't double talk around the FACT that he said:

THE PLANE FLEW AWAY TO THE SOUTH-WEST ACROSS HIGHWAY 27!

Posted by: Aldo Marquis CIT Nov 4 2009, 05:31 PM

Flying into south parking it would have been going south and then after making its u-turn to the mall entrance side would make it west. That could very well be what he meant by "south-west".

Regardless, the only plane it could be is the flyover plane. Either that or the C-130 and I called him back and confirmed the hell out what he saw, even informing him of the presence of the C-130 with propellors a few minutes after the explosion. He was sure that was not what he saw.

So I don't know what your purpose, nor do I understand where you get off trying to discredit witnesses that prove a flyover but debunk your silly and completely impossible NoC+impact theory. You may as well go after the north side flight path witnesses also, because guess what? They certainly prove the plane did not hit the building, as much as you want it to hit for some strange reason.

Posted by: Craig Ranke CIT Nov 4 2009, 05:32 PM

QUOTE (chris sarns @ Nov 4 2009, 10:27 PM)

THE PLANE FLEW AWAY TO THE SOUTH-WEST ACROSS HIGHWAY 27!

I never denied that he said that.

But he also said that the impact point was southwest of him and that the mall entrance side was southwest of him.

He was clearly incorrect regarding southwest, a cardinal direction that is difficult for ANYONE to relay over the phone while driving and trying to remember specific details of a very complex and confusing event.

Witnesses are fallible Chris.

If you believe he saw a plane at all you believe he saw a flyover.

If you don't you are calling him a liar and are forced to present your own hypothesis to explain the north side accounts.

We already know that your own hypothesis is proven false by the physical evidence.

There is no physical evidence for an exploding 737 such as a massive crater in the ground in front of the building.

Let go of your ego and your pathetic stubborn bullheadedness for once and deal with the facts.

The plane did not hit and the north side approach proves it.

Posted by: Aldo Marquis CIT Nov 4 2009, 05:40 PM

No no no, I get it.

CIT comes up with hard evidence proving an inside job, but Chris Sarns, armchair researcher and investigator deems it important to waste valuable time trying to interject HIS theory. HIS opinion.

K now what, Chris? The plane flew on the north side and then magically hit the building (while we ignore the gate cam video and directional damage disproving this nonsense). What are you doing about getting the evidence of the staged poles in front of people?

You've got some nerve going around calling CIT "incompetent" (as I saw you called us on blogger) as you spend countless hours poring over our research and the eyewitness testimony we collected. Research and testimony you would have never had if it weren't for us. Gotta love monday morning quarterbacks coming in to TELL US what really happened as they sit comfortably behind their monitor never setting foot in Arlington or in front of an actual eyewitness.

Let me repeat it...

A plane approaching on the north side of the gas station cannot hit the 5 light poles, show up low and level as seen in the dubious gate cam frames, hit the gen trailer with its right engine, and cause the directional damage leading to the C-ring hole. This is FACT. You can't change this.

Posted by: Craig Ranke CIT Nov 4 2009, 05:46 PM

QUOTE (Aldo Marquis CIT @ Nov 4 2009, 10:31 PM)

You may as well go after the north side flight path witnesses also, because guess what? They certainly prove the plane did not hit the building, as much as you want it to hit for some strange reason.

It's an incredibly bloated ego and a clear desire to be accepted and embraced by his 911blogger / anti-everything-about-the-pentagon-attack-clique.

He has relentlessly attacked us as evil genius "con-men" who are miraculously "fruit-loops" and "bonkers" at the same time.

Yet HE is the one who is the LONE PERSON ON EARTH to try and assert this scientifically impossible north side impact lunacy.

He's lost all control with reality in his desire to be accepted by the anti-CIT crowd while putting up this bogus "independent thinker" front.

Posted by: Craig Ranke CIT Nov 4 2009, 05:59 PM

QUOTE (chris sarns @ Nov 4 2009, 10:27 PM)

The north path witnesses do NOT prove flyover. That is based on an assumption that the plane would have to cause all the damage and that is not necessary.

Yes it is necessary for the plane to cause damage if it hit because planes don't disappear.

Even if they have bombs in them.

QUOTE

The other damage was caused by explosives. Your theory requires all the damage to be caused by explosives so why not just part of the damage?

Because NONE of the damage could have been caused by an exploding plane on the north side.

NONE of it.

Not the light poles, generator trailer, facade damage, or the C-ring hole.

Plus there is no physical evidence for an exploding plane.Your ridiculous exploding plane bomb theory is fatally contradicted by the lack of debris and lack of a massive crater in front of the building.

What do you not understand here?

Stop it with your relentless and ignorant personal campaign against us.

Stop speaking for Richard Gage and stop misrepresenting this information and spending all your time trying to obfuscate and create the impression there is a debate here.

Go back to making yourself feel useful by focusing all your attention on WTC7 again.

I'm sure you do a great job convincing people of the obvious but you have proven yourself an obstinate buffoon when it comes to real research and investigation concerning the Pentagon attack.

Posted by: chris sarns Nov 4 2009, 06:03 PM

QUOTE (Aldo Marquis CIT @ Nov 2 2009, 09:31 PM)

Flying into south parking it would have been going south and then after making its u-turn

It made the turn before it got to the south parking lot.

QUOTE

to the mall entrance side would make it west.

The Mall was north.

QUOTE

That could very well be what he meant by "south-west".

He meant south-west from the south-west corner of the south parking lot going south-west.Maybe this will help:

QUOTE

Regardless, the only plane it could be is the flyover plane.

It could NOT be the plane approaching from the west because it could not turn that quick.

QUOTE

So I don't know what your purpose

Yes you do.

QUOTE

nor do I understand where you get off trying to discredit witnesses that prove a flyover

You're the one trying to ignore what he said.

QUOTE

They certainly prove the plane did not hit the building

No they don't.

Posted by: Craig Ranke CIT Nov 4 2009, 06:14 PM

Sarns you've got nothing.

You've got ZERO evidence for your theory.

You have accused us of CONNING Richard Gage, David Ray Griffin, and many more while posturing yourself as somehow smarter than all of them and able to see right through our evil plot.

You are not smarter than any of them and you have not shown yourself to even have basic common sense.It is scientifically impossible for a plane on the north side to cause the physical damage and there is ZERO evidence that a plane exploded at ground level just outside the facade.

THINK ABOUT THAT.

Stop being such a bullheaded fool and realize that NONE of the published CIT detractors will back you on your idiotic north side impact theory and in fact pretty much all of them have already admitted that a north side approach proves a flyover.

You are not a researcher nor a studied individual on this information.

When I called you in July you had not even viewed National Security Alert.

But it only took one day before you were emotionally flying off the handle and making THREATS against us on behalf of Richard Gage DEMANDING that we remove our statements in NSA that a north side approach proves a flyover.

It's clear that you are not an emotionally stable individual and your reputation for your inability to control your emotions and communicate like a reasonable adult is well known.

Posted by: chris sarns Nov 4 2009, 06:14 PM

QUOTE (Aldo Marquis CIT @ Nov 2 2009, 09:40 PM)

A plane approaching on the north side of the gas station cannot hit the 5 light poles, show up low and level as seen in the dubious gate cam frames, hit the gen trailer with its right engine, and cause the directional damage leading to the C-ring hole. This is FACT.

We agree on those facts.

Posted by: Craig Ranke CIT Nov 4 2009, 06:17 PM

QUOTE (chris sarns @ Nov 4 2009, 11:14 PM)

We agree on those facts.

It is scientifically impossible for a plane on the north side to cause the physical damage and there is ZERO evidence that a plane exploded at ground level just outside the facade.

This proves the plane flew away and that Roosevelt is not lying about this with no motive.

Posted by: chris sarns Nov 4 2009, 06:28 PM

QUOTE (Craig Ranke CIT @ Nov 2 2009, 10:14 PM)

Sarns you've got nothing.

You've got ZERO evidence for your theory.

That's right.

QUOTE

It is scientifically impossible for a plane on the north side to cause the physical damage

Right again.

QUOTE

in fact pretty much of them have already admitted that a north side approach proves a flyover.

2 out of 3 ain't bad.

QUOTE

You are not a researcher or studied individual on this info.

I have done little else for the last week and I had already studied your videos and witness statements for many, many hours.

The transcript was what allowed me to figure out what Roosevelt was saying. The interview is chaotic and the information disjointed but it's there.

Posted by: Aldo Marquis CIT Nov 4 2009, 06:28 PM

QUOTE (chris sarns @ Nov 5 2009, 12:03 AM)

It made the turn before it got to the south parking lot.

No when he saw it, it was flying around south parking lot, "banking just above the light poles", making a u-turn out towards the mall entrance side.

QUOTE

The Mall was north.

I know. That is where the plane flew towards. That is not southwest.

QUOTE

He meant south-west from the south-west corner of the south parking lot going south-west.

Man, you sound confused. He "meant" that? You talked to him? You got it all cleared up Chris?

That's why he said it was traveling east towards DC, coming from where he believe the first plane hit, then making a u turn out going to the mall entrance side on the north.

QUOTE

Maybe this will help:

Aww, ur losing it huh? Getting frustrated? Well just admit you are wrong. It's ok.

QUOTE

It could NOT be the plane approaching from the west because it could not turn that quick.

You know how quick it turned? You were there? You went back in time and timed everything as you stood next to Roosevelt?

QUOTE

Yes you do.

No, I don't. That is why I asked. Is it disruption? Disinfo? Distraction? Subterfuge? Ego?

QUOTE

You're the one trying to ignore what he said.

Right, as you ignore that the mall entrance is to the north.

So how did it get from south parking lot over the mall entrance side, Chris? Did it go SW to get there? LOL.

QUOTE

No they don't.

Only in the lone mind of Chris Sarns on whatever planet he is from.

Posted by: Aldo Marquis CIT Nov 4 2009, 06:29 PM

QUOTE (chris sarns @ Nov 5 2009, 12:14 AM)

We agree on those facts.

You may want to read that again lol. You just admitted you are wrong.

Posted by: Craig Ranke CIT Nov 4 2009, 06:43 PM

QUOTE (chris sarns @ Nov 4 2009, 11:28 PM)

The transcript was what allowed me to figure out what Roosevelt was saying. The interview is chaotic and the information disjointed but it's there.

So what is your contention?

What are you suggesting he saw if it wasn't the plane flying away?

Posted by: Craig Ranke CIT Nov 4 2009, 06:50 PM

QUOTE (Aldo Marquis CIT @ Nov 4 2009, 11:29 PM)

You may want to read that again lol. You just admitted you are wrong.

His theory is that a "breeze" caused a 737 loaded up with bombs to blow off course to the north side while all the physical damage was staged and the plane blew up and completely disintegrated just prior to impact without causing a crater in the lawn.

I kid you not.

THAT is the result of his arm chair research and justification for publicly accusing us of being "fruit loops con-men".

Posted by: chris sarns Nov 4 2009, 07:07 PM

QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Nov 2 2009, 07:40 PM)

Landmarks trump cardinal direction every time when dealing with witnesses, or even pilots, especially in an informal setting. I cant count how many times i have heard other pilots/ATC.. .etc... say southwest when they meant southeast. Northwest when they meant northeast... ."Traffic 9 O'clock" when they meant "3 o'clock"... and so on... Its an honest mistake.

To take Roberts statement of "southwest" in an interview on a cell phone while he was driving as literal.

He said he was in the south parking lot. He knew which direction south was. He knew Highway 27 was to the west.

QUOTE

while ignoring his landmark statements is intellectually dishonest or cherry picking to fit an already established belief/agenda.

I didn't expect that from you.

A plane on the north path could not turn and head south-west as he stated.

QUOTE

Sure "a plane" can. It depends on the type aircraft and perhaps any classified military technology involved.

Not the plane the north path witnesses described.

QUOTE

if you accept the north flight path statements, any type of aircraft could have been used,

Terry Morin said it was a 737 and later said it must have been a 757. There's not much difference.A 737-900 is only 17 feet shorter than a 757-200. The wingspan of a 373 is 12 feet less than a 757. The fuselage width is 12 feet for both.

QUOTE

Since Roberts refused a second meeting to clarify statements, his most important statement at this time is the fact he vividly remembers observing an aircraft immediately AFTER the explosion. This is fatal to the govt story.

He reaffirmed 10 seconds.

Aldo: A- okay. So- an- an- but- would- now how long would- I mean would you be sure that it was about ten seconds that it would take you to run from the phone to the outside, or would you think it was less than ten se- ten seconds?

Craig: Or a little bit more?

Roosevelt: It would've t- it would've taken about ten seconds, because after impact I stepped out the little, uh, booth that I was in. And the distance between. . . that booth and the edge of that dock is about, maybe, I don't know like. . . seven steps away from there.

This is your witness so if you don't believe him then how can you say he proves or even supports flyover?

Posted by: chris sarns Nov 4 2009, 07:32 PM

QUOTE (Craig Ranke CIT @ Nov 2 2009, 09:43 PM)

So what is your contention?

What are you suggesting he saw if it wasn't the plane flying away?

I don't know but it could not be the plane on the north path. He thought is was another plane and it flew over Highway 27 at less than 100 feet. That's what he said.

Posted by: Aldo Marquis CIT Nov 4 2009, 07:39 PM

QUOTE (chris sarns @ Nov 5 2009, 12:07 AM)

He said he was in the south parking lot. He knew which direction south was. He knew Highway 27 was to the west.

He knew where south parking is because they have lots of signs telling you so.

QUOTE

I didn't expect that from you.

A plane on the north path could not turn and head south-west as he stated.

Actually a plane can. But that is not what he describes he describes it doing a u-turn out and heading to the Mall Entrance side.

QUOTE

Not the plane the north path witnesses described.

Actually yes it can.

QUOTE

Terry Morin said it was a 737 and later said it must have been a 757. There's not much difference.A 737-900 is only 17 feet shorter than a 757-200. The wingspan of a 373 is 12 feet less than a 757. The fuselage width is 12 feet for both.

Yeah it could have been a 737. So? Doesn't change that it could not and did not hit.

QUOTE

He reaffirmed 10 seconds.

Aldo: A- okay. So- an- an- but- would- now how long would- I mean would you be sure that it was about ten seconds that it would take you to run from the phone to the outside, or would you think it was less than ten se- ten seconds?

Craig: Or a little bit more?

Roosevelt: It would've t- it would've taken about ten seconds, because after impact I stepped out the little, uh, booth that I was in. And the distance between. . . that booth and the edge of that dock is about, maybe, I don't know like. . . seven steps away from there.

So? He also said 10 seconds tops. So it could be 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, or 9 seconds. For all you know, they could have been setting off the internal bombs before the plane even reached the building, prompting Roosevelt to run out and see the plane at what he thought was close to 10 seconds. A 7 steps to the edge of the loading dock, that is a clear indicator that it can only be the flyover plane he saw.

QUOTE

This is your witness so if you don't believe him then how can you say he proves or even supports flyover?

Dude listen to you. You sound like those scumbag "skeptics" who have ran out of fuel so they try some bizarre reverse psychology by trying to insinuate we "don't believe" our witnesses.

You lost, Chris. Go home. Stop being a spoiled sport.

Posted by: Aldo Marquis CIT Nov 4 2009, 07:44 PM

QUOTE (chris sarns @ Nov 5 2009, 12:32 AM)

I don't know but it could not be the plane on the north path. He thought is was another plane and it flew over Highway 27 at less than 100 feet. That's what he said.

Actually that is exactly what it was the plane that banked to the right on the north side of the gas station taking it right into south parking lot.

He can believe it was a second plane all he wants. It can only be the flyover plane. It wasn't the C-130 and it wasn't an errant commercial flight from or headed to Reagan.

National Groundstop was enacted by 9:25, so it could not be a departure. Which we also know it would not be because of the direction it approached from. And it could not be an arrival , because planes were landing from the south that day.

You lose again.

Posted by: Craig Ranke CIT Nov 4 2009, 08:35 PM

QUOTE (chris sarns @ Nov 5 2009, 01:32 AM)

I don't know but it could not be the plane on the north path. He thought is was another plane and it flew over Highway 27 at less than 100 feet. That's what he said.

If you don't have an explanation for the plane and you don't think he is lying about seeing the plane then you have no choice but to admit you agree he corroborates the north side witnesses who scientifically prove a flyover.

It's as simple as that.

Now cease your public campaign to discredit us personally with baseless accusations of fraud and start being productive by getting this evidence that you agree proves 9/11 was an inside job into the hands of media and congresspeople.

Posted by: Craig Ranke CIT Nov 4 2009, 08:50 PM

QUOTE (Craig Ranke CIT @ Nov 5 2009, 02:35 AM)

Now cease your public campaign to discredit us personally with baseless accusations of fraud....

For the record this why it may seem as if Aldo and I are being a bit hard on Chris Sarns.

For the past few weeks on 911blogger he has engaged in an all out campaign to attack us personally by calling us "looney tunes", "bonkers", "fruit-loops", and outright "professional con-men" and of course "disinformation".

He has engaged in persistent and absolutely baseless personal attacks without shame EVEN THOUGH he admits that he accepts the north side approach evidence and even believes the light poles, generator trailer, and much more of the physical damage was staged.

There is no logic or excuse for his behavior whatsoever. It's been absolutely out of control as his obsession with attacking us and harsh rhetoric has continuously escalated.

All of this supposedly because we state the undeniable scientific fact that ALL supporters and detractors who have published anything on this issue unanimously agree on.......the north side approach proves a flyover.

Unless there is more behind his motive that he has not revealed.

Posted by: chris sarns Nov 4 2009, 09:12 PM

QUOTE (Aldo Marquis CIT @ Nov 2 2009, 10:28 PM)

No when he saw it, it was flying around south parking lot,

Flying around? He does not say that.Here's what he said:

Aldo: So you- you heard the explosion and ten seconds later you were outside and you were able to see that plane?

Roosevelt: Correct. You could see that plane just as clear as day. Couldn't miss it.

Aldo: Wha- what color was it; do you remember?

Roosevelt: Uh, it was- to me at that time, it looked like it was silver in color.

Aldo: Like silver in color; but you saw it over the south parking lot.

Roosevelt: Right; around the lane one area, and it was like banking just above the, uh, light poles like.

The lane one area is the west end of the south parking lot.

QUOTE

"banking just above the light poles", making a u-turn out towards the mall entrance side.

No. It was over the south west corner [lane one] of the south parking lot headed south-west over Highway 27.

Posted by: Craig Ranke CIT Nov 4 2009, 09:21 PM

Chris,

Eyewitnesses are fallible.

Not only that they often deduce and embellish.

They are subjective and are virtually NEVER 100% correct.

You are a fool if you believe that YOUR extreme literal interpretation of his words is exactly what he meant or saw.

If you believe he saw a plane over the parking lot AT ALL within seconds of the explosion you are admitting to a flyover.

No matter how hard you work to discredit Roosevelt Roberts and us personally you can not change that fact.

Now cease your public campaign to discredit us personally with baseless accusations of fraud.

In fact if you are the least bit honest you will issue a full public apology as an entry to your blog at blogger. If you don't you will always be considered someone with a personal agenda against us as a detriment to exposing the 9/11 deception.

Don't fool yourself. Your little gate keeping anti-cit clique at blogger do NOT represent the majority of the truth movement or the true research community.

Posted by: Craig Ranke CIT Nov 4 2009, 09:35 PM

QUOTE (chris sarns @ Nov 5 2009, 03:12 AM)

Flying around? He does not say that.

Yes he does say that.

He said it to the Library of Congress in 2001.

"As I hung up the phone and I ran to the center of the dock and I looked up, and I saw another plane flying around the south parking lot"

Stop pretending like you know what you are talking about or faking like you are an authority on this issue just because you have been literally obsessed with personally attacking us and attempting to discredit the witnesses the past week.

That does not make you a studied researcher.

Posted by: rob balsamo Nov 4 2009, 09:41 PM

QUOTE (Craig Ranke CIT @ Nov 4 2009, 06:50 PM)

His theory is that a "breeze" caused a 737 loaded up with bombs to blow off course to the north side while all the physical damage was staged and the plane blew up and completely disintegrated just prior to impact without causing a crater in the lawn.

Chris, you may want to check the weather for that time of the day, the winds were from the opposite direction (Northwest). Unless of course you feel there was some huge wind machine from the south turned on just as a 737 passed Morin, and then turned off once near the Pentagon?

See top of our Pentagon page for Current Weather at DCA (METAR) and for decode link.

I bolded the above relevant portion. Winds were from 330 degrees at 10 knots.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/pentagon

Posted by: Craig Ranke CIT Nov 4 2009, 09:50 PM

QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Nov 5 2009, 03:41 AM)

Chris, you may want to check the weather for that time of the day, the winds were from the opposite direction (Northwest).

Only researchers actually do research BEFORE presenting theories.

People like Chris Sarns who prefer to personally attack real researchers and obfuscate real evidence will say anything to cast doubt and make it look like there is a "debate".

They don't even care about their own credibility.

Posted by: chris sarns Nov 5 2009, 02:27 AM

QUOTE (Craig Ranke CIT @ Nov 3 2009, 12:21 AM)

Chris,

Eyewitnesses are fallible.

Not only that they often deduce and embellish.

They are subjective and are virtually NEVER 100% correct.

You are a fool if you believe that YOUR extreme literal interpretation of his words is exactly what he meant or saw.

He said the plane was "around the lane one area" That's at the west end of the south parking lot. He said the plane flew away to the south-west.

Do you believe him?

If not what do you believe.?

Posted by: chris sarns Nov 5 2009, 02:46 AM

This is yesterdays news. I scrapped that idea. I realized that the plane could have followed the average north path an hit the building causing the damage on the lower floors. There is nothing about the north path that precludes the plane hitting the Pentagon.

It didn't do the interior damage. So what? You cannot rule out the possibility explosives caused the rest of the damage. In your theory, all the damage is caused by explosives so you know that is possible.

You know that the plane could not have made that turn. You know Roosevelt said the plane flew away to the south-west over Highway 27. Therefore, you know the plane he saw was could not be the plane that flew the north path.

Can you acknowledge this? Can you show where he said something else?

Posted by: Craig Ranke CIT Nov 5 2009, 12:30 PM

QUOTE (chris sarns @ Nov 5 2009, 08:27 AM)

He said the plane was "around the lane one area" That's at the west end of the south parking lot. He said the plane flew away to the south-west.

Do you believe him?

If not what do you believe.?

He says the plane came from the alleged impact side (west) and banked around to the mall entrance side (north).

Of course I believe him because he has no motive to lie, is corroborated by Erik Dihle and all the north side witnesses, and he is the ultimate confirmation of a deception on 9/11.

But I am also a reasonable and logical person who understands that witnesses are subjective and fallible especially when considering the extremely confusing and chaotic nature of the event he is relaying.

Furthermore I understand how you have a confirmation bias against a flyover and a personal vendetta against CIT and have chosen to vigorously pursue this publicly by literally attacking us and the witnesses with no basis whatsoever in a blatant attempt to discredit us.

Only 2 days ago after accusing us of being con-men you admitted this on blogger regarding your agenda against Roosevelt Roberts' account and us personally:

QUOTE (Chris Sarns Wed Nov 4th on 911blogger)

Taking his statement at face value, it does not support the flyover theory which is my only concern. I don't care if he saw a flying pig, it leaves CIT with zip, nada, no frikkin witnesses. ;-)

Did I mention I don't like those guys (CIT)?(emphasis added)http://www.911blogger.com/node/21720#comment-220901

So you admitted that you are reducing his words to "face value" while ignoring the extremely confusing and chaotic nature of the event being discussed and the fact that witness accounts are subjective and fallible -- all as a means to come up with your own impossible interpretation of the exact details of Roosevelt's account so you can feel comfortable DISMISSING what he saw with a hand wave and no explanation whatsoever.

And of course you also admitted that you have a personal grudge against us even though we have never met and the extent of our communication has been this thread and one phone call in July. After which, the very next day, you immediately flew off the handle emotionally via email and made DEMANDS that we change the entire premise of National Security Alert, and actualy leveled threats against us on behalf of Richard Gage.

This behavior and your continuous personal attacks against us ever since is all very solid evidence that you, Christopher Sarns, are not a stable individual who is looking at this information objectively.

Posted by: Ligon Nov 5 2009, 12:33 PM

QUOTE (chris sarns @ Nov 5 2009, 02:46 AM)

You know that the plane could not have made that turn. You know Roosevelt said the plane flew away to the south-west over Highway 27. Therefore, you know the plane he saw was could not be the plane that flew the north path.

So you acknowledge that Roosevelt DID see a large commercial aircraft after all, but you think that it was a SECOND large commercial aircraft that was flying over the south parking lot headed southwest across route 27 just seconds after the explosion, even though NO ONE corroborates that. Got it. No, you're right Chris. That makes way more sense than Roosevelt simply http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?s=&showtopic=18306&view=findpost&p=10778662 as Craig suggested.

Posted by: Craig Ranke CIT Nov 5 2009, 12:40 PM

QUOTE (chris sarns @ Nov 5 2009, 08:46 AM)

This is yesterdays news. I scrapped that idea. I realized that the plane could have followed the average north path an hit the building causing the damage on the lower floors. There is nothing about the north path that precludes the plane hitting the Pentagon.

You have no coherent hypothesis because you are not a researcher.

Your are stubborn angry man with an admitted personal grudge against us who has shown himself to be more concerned with personally attacking CIT and obfuscating the facts than exposing the 9/11 deception.

QUOTE

It didn't do the interior damage. So what? You cannot rule out the possibility explosives caused the rest of the damage. In your theory, all the damage is caused by explosives so you know that is possible.

Of course it's possible for the damage to the building to be staged with pre-planted explosives but what is NOT possible is for a large plane full of bombs to explode and completely disintegrate at ground level without creating a massive crater in the ground.

This proves your theory false which is why you have failed to address it.

QUOTE

You know that the plane could not have made that turn. You know Roosevelt said the plane flew away to the south-west over Highway 27. Therefore, you know the plane he saw was could not be the plane that flew the north path.

Can you acknowledge this? Can you show where he said something else?

Yes we've already done that...he says it banked around to the Mall entrance side which is north.

Route 27 runs alongside north parking too.

Either way the fact that he saw a plane over the parking lot immediately after the explosion at all supports a flyover and corroborates the north side witnesses who already prove the plane did not hit.

Your admitted personal grudge against us and clear desire to attack us personally and attempt to discredit Roosevelt Roberts Jr proves you are unable to look at this information logically or objectively.

Posted by: painter Nov 5 2009, 01:30 PM

QUOTE (chris sarns @ Nov 4 2009, 11:46 PM)

<snip>There is nothing about the north path that precludes the plane hitting the Pentagon.

I'm surprised this has been left to stand unchallenged.

There may be nothing about the north path that precludes the "possibility" of the plane hitting the Pentagon but there is nothing about the damage at the Pentagon -- within the Pentagon or its immediate environment -- indicating it did. NO EVIDENCE of a north approach impact.

We have no evidence of a plane impacting any of the obstructions along hwy 27 other than the downed light poles which clearly demand a south flight path. We have no evidence of a descent angle that could avoid those obstructions yet simultaneously impact the building at precisely ground level without causing either damage to the lawn or the foundation of the building. In fact, we have no evidence of a plane impacting the building at all except for light poles we know were staged because the plane was not witnessed on the path required to hit them, a few not positively identified (and not publicly available for analysis) pieces of debris and the damage along the facade and within the building which also, not coincidentally, aligns with a south approach.

If the north approach witnesses are to be believed (and I've not been given any reason to not believe them) the plane they witnessed is irreconcilable with the damage at the Pentagon. This leaves us with one, and only one, REASONABLE conclusion: The plane these witnesses saw must have flown over the Pentagon. Attempts to suggest that the plane somehow impacted without leaving any evidential damage or that it somehow "disintegrated" is grasping at straws -- and it begs the question: Why is it so important to some that the fly-over hypothesis be obfuscated? So much so that one would float alternative hypotheses with no evidence to support them? What is it about the Pentagon that in the minds of some, despite all evidence to the contrary, demands an impact? So much so that they will grasp at straws in a vein attempt to hold open this "possibility"?

We cannot talk about the events at the Pentagon by isolating one witness and divorcing his account from the accounts of all other witnesses. We have multiple accounts which agree not only with a north approach but in multiple instances with a right bank and in one instance reporting a "pull up" at hwy 27. There is NO EVIDENCE for an impact along this approach, especially with a right bank and doubly especially with a "pull up". Again, that leaves us with only one REASONABLE hypothesis unless one wants to grasp at straws not supported by any evidence.

That those who wish to support 'keeping open the possibility that the plane did impact along the north approach' also find it necessary to resort to insults and defamation of character against those who hold a perfectly reasonable hypothesis given the evidence further begs the question: Why? Why is it so necessary to retain this unsubstantiated hypothesis in the mind?

QUOTE (Aldo Marquis CIT @ Nov 4 2009, 03:28 PM)

Is it disruption? Disinfo? Distraction? Subterfuge? Ego?

Indeed.

Posted by: Aldo Marquis CIT Nov 5 2009, 02:27 PM

And there you have it, Chris. Thank you so much painter. That was perfectly put.

Posted by: Craig Ranke CIT Nov 5 2009, 04:35 PM

Only researchers and truly objective scientists require evidence in support of their theories.

People like Chris Sarns who prefer to personally attack real researchers and obfuscate real evidence will say anything to cast doubt and make it look like there is a "debate".

Evidence isn't required when that is your intent.

Posted by: chris sarns Nov 5 2009, 05:03 PM

QUOTE (painter @ Nov 3 2009, 04:30 PM)

There may be nothing about the north path that precludes the "possibility" of the plane hitting the Pentagon

Thank you. This is a claim made by Craig and Aldo that is simply not valid.

QUOTE

NO EVIDENCE of a north approach impact.

There is no more or less evidence for an impact from either direction. In the "plane hit the Pentagon" scenario, or the flyover scenario, the damage was the result of explosives either in part or entirely.

QUOTE

We have no evidence of a plane impacting any of the obstructions along hwy 27 other than the down light poles which clearly demand a south flight path.

Proof that the light poles were staged has been around since 2005. [I can't find the URL right now]

There are no gouges in the lawn. If the pole were hit by a plane going 460 mph it would have made gouges as it skidded to a stop. I suggest this evidence be used in conjunction with the evidence P4T has complied.

QUOTE

we have no evidence of a plane impacting the building at all except for light poles . . .REASONABLE conclusion: The plane these witnesses saw must have flown over the Pentagon.

The wingspan of a 737 is 112 feet shorter and the tail 3 feet lower than a 757. Explosive could account for the vertical stabilizer not making a mark and the lack of large pieces. I'm not saying this is a fact, I only offer it as a possibility. The measurements were determined using the known height of 77'.

I agree that there is no proof a plane hit the Pentagon but it doesn't matter what we think. There are enough government claims of evidence and spin to completely fog the issue. The proof is in the videos and without them it cannot be said for certain what if anything hit the Pentagon.

QUOTE

Why is it so important to some that the fly-over hypothesis be obfuscated?

I have looked at the evidence for flyover and found that there is none.

Please read the transcript of the interview with Roosevelt. There was a serious problem with his understanding the questions and the information is disjointed. Only by picking out and assembling the statements describing the path of the plane he saw can one determine what he thought the flight path was. The following is what I assembled. If you can show where he says something else, please post it and say why it says something else.Roosevelt:coming from the 27 side heading east towards DC . . . it looked like it went over on the mall entrance side and turned around . . . . the plane . . . was facing west, so it went. . . southwest away from the Pentagon. . . around the lane one area, and it was like banking just above the light poles like. It was heading . . .back across 27. . . and it looks like . . . that plane was heading . . . southwest.http://www.atsadgrab.com/forum/thread382628/pg1

CIT misrepresented the second hand witness accounts by including the person who thought the plane kept going and left out the part where someone said the plane hit the building.“The first few seconds it was very confusing, we couldn’t even tell . . . some people were yelling that a bomb had hit the Pentagon and a jet kept on going . . . somebody else was yelling no, no, no, the jet ran into the building."

It is not known if the people saying the plane kept going saw it themselves or heard it from someone else. These conflicting second hand accounts cancel each other out. They do not qualify as evidence of anything.

Three of CIT's witnesses confirm the plane did NOT fly over the Pentagon.

At 22:55 of "National Security Alert", Craig says "So it flew up to go over that" [the Do Not Enter sign]Robert Turcios "Yes"Robert then said "The view [unintelligible] My view was . . . I could not totally see when it hit the Pentagon."Craig says "You didn't actually see it hit the Pentagon".The subtitles on the screen leave out Robert's reply "The view was obstructed still" and skip to "I could only see the fire ball from the explosion."

At 24:20, Craig says "This is exactly where you saw the plane fly by, right?”Robert "Yes"The Pentagon is in the background and all but the bottom floor is clearly visible.Robert said he did not totally see the plane hit the Pentagon because his view was obstructed. He would still be able to see the vertical stabilizer. Only the first floor was hidden from his view. In other words, the plane hit the first floor.

Starting at 26:20: In the interview with Officer Chadwick Brooks, the pentagon is clearly visible in the background. The view of the bottom floor is obstructed.Officer Brooks:"From this point right here we were able to see everything."How could he miss seeing the plane fly over the Pentagon?To borrow a quote from Craig:"A ridiculous and virtually impossible mistake for anyone to make, let alone a federal officer who is professionally trained to observe and report."

Sean Boger was in the Heliport control tower. He said the plane hit the Pentagon. CIT believes every part of his story except the part that contradicts their flyover theory.

Posted by: Craig Ranke CIT Nov 5 2009, 05:47 PM

QUOTE (chris sarns @ Nov 5 2009, 10:03 PM)

Thank you. This is a claim made by Craig and Aldo that is simply not valid.

It's hypothetically possible. We have never denied that.

But the physical damage proves that the plane did not hit from the north side.

QUOTE

There is no more or less evidence for an impact from either direction. In the "plane hit the Pentagon" scenario, or the flyover scenario, the damage was the result of explosives either in part or entirely.

ALL of the damage REQUIRES an impact from the south side.

That is the point.

All researchers including CIT detractors agree that the plane can ONLY approach from south of the gas station to cause the physical damage.

You are the lone dissenting voice but you are unable to articulate a coherent or feasible hypothesis because you do not have one and you are wrong.

Furthermore you have admitted an unprovoked personal grudge against us and have a clear confirmation bias against the flyover proving you are not objective or even a reasonable/civil human being.

QUOTE

Proof that the light poles were staged has been around since 2005. [I can't find the URL right now]

There are no gouges in the lawn. If the pole were hit by a plane going 460 mph it would have made gouges as it skidded to a stop. I suggest this evidence be used in conjunction with the evidence P4T has complied.

Actually Killtown has been harping about this for years so it's funny to watch you all the sudden act like it's some big discovery of yours!

Yes the light poles were staged but a lack of gouge in the lawn is not "proof" of it in the least.

The eyewitness evidence uncovered by CIT is the proof.

P4T does not assert that the light poles were staged or any hypothesis at all. They present facts and professional analysis regarding the official NTSB data and aircraft capabilities.

QUOTE

The wingspan of a 737 is 112 feet shorter and the tail 3 feet lower than a 757. Explosive could account for the vertical stabilizer not making a mark and the lack of large pieces. I'm not saying this is a fact, I only offer it as a possibility. The measurements were determined using the known height of 77'.

Why didn't the exploding 737 leave ANY trace of recognizable 737 debris ANYWHERE? Bombs inside the plane would not disintegrate the entire plane including tail section and wings. Those appendages would be sent flying.

And why didn't this plane bomb leave a crater in the lawn or the foundation of the building?

I'll tell you why, your ridiculous theory that you admit has no evidence to support it is false.

QUOTE

I agree that there is no proof a plane hit the Pentagon but it doesn't matter what we think. There are enough government claims of evidence and spin to completely fog the issue. The proof is in the videos and without them it cannot be said for certain what if anything hit the Pentagon.

No govt controlled evidence released after the fact will ever prove anything.

The north side approach evidence, if accepted as valid, is scientific proof the plane did not hit.

Just ask Hoffman, Legge, Caustic Logic, or any of the other CIT detractors who have looked at this infintiely more closely than you have.

You are not smarter than any of them.

In fact you have shown yourself to be nothing but an illogical angry man with an agenda to attack CIT personally.

QUOTE

I have looked at the evidence for flyover and found that there is none.

Yes there is.

That would be ALL of the north side approach witnesses who have been corroborated by Roosevelt Roberts and Erik Dihle.

QUOTE

Please read the transcript of the interview with Roosevelt. There was a serious problem with his understanding the questions and the information is disjointed. Only by picking out and assembling the statements describing the path of the plane he saw can one determine what he thought the flight path was. The following is what I assembled. If you can show where he says something else, please post it and say why it says something else.Roosevelt:coming from the 27 side heading east towards DC . . . it looked like it went over on the mall entrance side and turned around . . . . the plane . . . was facing west, so it went. . . southwest away from the Pentagon. . . around the lane one area, and it was like banking just above the light poles like. It was heading . . .back across 27. . . and it looks like . . . that plane was heading . . . southwest.

No matter how many times you post it it does not change the fact that WHEREVER the plane exactly flew you must agree that Roosevelt's account confirms a flyover unless you are willing to accuse him of fabricating his story with no motive.

QUOTE

CIT misrepresented the second hand witness accounts by including the person who thought the plane kept going and left out the part where someone said the plane hit the building.“The first few seconds it was very confusing, we couldn’t even tell . . . some people were yelling that a bomb had hit the Pentagon and a jet kept on going . . . somebody else was yelling no, no, no, the jet ran into the building."

No we didn't. We provide the full audio publicly on our forum.http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=499&st=0

Furthermore we do not claim that Dihle was telling the CMH that he BELIEVES the plane flew over and the beginning is included where he specifically states there was a lot of confusion and people weren't sure what happened.

This is what facilitated the deception.

Confusion.

It's clear that most people were DECEIVED into believing the plane hit exactly like they were deceived into believing the plane impacts and subsequent fires at the wtc caused the buildings to collapse.

Nothing was "misrepresented" so cease your baseless accusations due to your admitted personal grudge against us now.

QUOTE

It is not known if the people saying the plane kept going saw it themselves or heard it from someone else. These conflicting second hand accounts cancel each other out. They do not qualify as evidence of anything.

You can't really be this dumb.

Are you??

"Cancel each other out"????

This isn't a game.

This is evidence of a psychological black operation of deception.

We KNOW that people were DECEIVED into believing the plane hit but if it did NOBODY would think it flew over.

This can't be so difficult for your stubborn brain to comprehend.

QUOTE

Three of CIT's witnesses confirm the plane did NOT fly over the Pentagon.

So you really ARE this dumb!

Wow.

Pssst.......ALL of the north side witnesses believed the plane hit.

That is why they talked to us in the first place.

They did not understand the implications of what they saw and they were successfully deceived as intended. They would have never talked to us if they thought the plane flew over.

We have never denied this and in fact it only adds to their credibility because they are not pushing a conspiracy.

But it does not change the fact that it is scientifically impossible for a plane on the north side to cause ANY of the directional physical damage that requires a south side approach.

You are not more intelligent than the entire organization of Pilots for 9/11 Truth and every CIT detractor who has ever published anything on this issue.

That much is as clear as is your unprovoked yet admitted personal grudge against CIT that is keeping you from looking at this information objectively.

Posted by: chris sarns Nov 5 2009, 07:17 PM

QUOTE

There may be nothing about the north path that precludes the "possibility" of the plane hitting the Pentagon

QUOTE (Craig Ranke CIT @ Nov 3 2009, 09:47 PM)

It's hypothetically possible. We have never denied that.But the physical damage proves that the plane did not hit.ALL of the damage REQUIRES an impact from the south side.

You just contradicted yourself.The damage could have been caused by explosives. Your flyover scenario requires all the damage be due to explosives. Why not just part of the damage?You are still making the claim that the damage precludes the north path approach. That claim is invalid.

QUOTE

Why didn't the exploding 737 leave ANY trace of 737 debris ANYWHERE? And why didn't it leave a crater in the lawn or the foundation of the building?

Witnesses said debris was falling around them.These two explosions did not leave a crater.

QUOTE

The north side approach evidence, if accepted as valid, is scientific proof the plane did not hit.

What scientific proof? The damage not caused by an impact could have been caused by explosives.

QUOTE

In fact you have proven to be an illogical angry man with an agenda to attack CIT personally.

Several people told me that some of the comments I have made are not helping my case so I have stopped making them. You are hardly in a position to criticize anyone for badmouthing others. Your posts here and your enemies list do so in the extreme. You do misrepresent the facts about the Erik Dihle statement and will continue to say so.

QUOTE

I have looked at the evidence for flyover and found that there is none.

QUOTE

That would be ALL of the north side approach witnesses who have been corroborated by Roosevelt Roberts and Erik Dihle.

Roosevelt said the plane flew away to the south-west. You have stated that he said the plane flew away to the north. Please post the statement that supports that claim.

QUOTE

CIT misrepresented the second hand witness accounts by including the person who thought the plane kept going and left out the part where someone said the plane hit the building.“The first few seconds it was very confusing, we couldn’t even tell . . . some people were yelling that a bomb had hit the Pentagon and a jet kept on going . . . somebody else was yelling no, no, no, the jet ran into the building."

QUOTE

We provide the full audio publicly on our forum.

But you don't include the conflicting statements when you claim publicly that Eric's statement supports flyover, nor do you mention that Eric overheard them. You know most people will not listen to the full interview and think Eric's account is first hand. They will not know about the equally valid statements from the same location that conflict with the "confirmed by" claim you make.

Posted by: Aldo Marquis CIT Nov 5 2009, 07:44 PM

QUOTE

You do misrepresent the facts about the Erik Dihle statement and will continue to say so.

You do that.

If it hit why did people think a bomb went off and the jet kept on going? LOL.

An even better question: If we collected evidence of a north side flight path, which as Painter clearly spelled out for you can only mean a flyover, and Robert Turcios indicates he saw the plane pull up into an ascent over the highway, and Darius Prather saw it "pivot up", and Maria De la Cerda thought it hit on top or on the other side and did not understand the side impact, and Roosevelt Roberts became the final validation in saying he saw the aircraft flying away from the pentagon seconds after the explosion, and considering we realize some people would have been fooled into believing it hit, WHICH PART OF ERIK DIHLE'S ACCOUNT DO YOU THINK WE WOULD LOGICALLY FOCUS ON? Which part of his account is more important to us in light of the evidence we have collected and the conclusions we have come to?

You are desperate and pathetic.

Posted by: chris sarns Nov 5 2009, 09:30 PM

QUOTE (Aldo Marquis CIT @ Nov 3 2009, 11:44 PM)

Robert Turcios indicates he saw the plane pull up into an ascent over the highway, and Darius Prather saw it "pivot up"

You did not ask them what the plane did after that. Robert Turcios and Chadwick Brooks saw where the plane went. When you were video-recording them you could see that. Chadwick even said he could see the whole thing but you did not ask if he saw the plane hit the building. That is what you were supposedly investigating and they could have told you. They didn't actually have to see it hit to know that. The plane would have dropped behind what was obstructing their view of the first floor.

Posted by: rob balsamo Nov 5 2009, 09:58 PM

QUOTE (chris sarns @ Nov 5 2009, 09:30 PM)

You did not ask them what the plane did after that.

Yes they did.

Chris, your ignorance of this topic is very unbecoming.

Robert said he wasn't sure what happened after that as all he saw was a big fireball. He assumed the aircraft hit.

The ANC witnesses said they were running for their lives because the aircraft was approaching them (which is impossible if it were on the south path). Not to mention the fact there is a huge tree line blocking their view of the Pentagon.

Have you even reviewed NSA or AoP? Apparently not.

Furthermore, have you calculated the descent angles required for an impact from the north path and which poles would be damaged as a result? Do you realize an impact from the north path would probably take out the Heliport tower?

Chris, your whole impact theory from a north path while staging all the other damage of a south path is absurd.

Why would they impact an aircraft from a north path and stage damage from a completely opposite direction?

Posted by: Craig Ranke CIT Nov 5 2009, 10:15 PM

QUOTE (chris sarns @ Nov 6 2009, 12:17 AM)

You just contradicted yourself.The damage could have been caused by explosives. Your flyover scenario requires all the damage be due to explosives. Why not just part of the damage?You are still making the claim that the damage precludes the north path approach. That claim is invalid.

I did not contradict myself at all, you just apparently have issues comprehending basic logic and a knack for changing the subject within the same sentence.

There is ZERO damage consistent with a north side approach.

This is a fact and is the exact reason why Hoffman, Arabesque, and all individuals on earth who have published anything on this issue agree with us and not you in this regard.

Your notion that the perps would have this amazing stroke of luck where all recognizable pieces would be completely disintegrated is laughable.

QUOTE

These two explosions did not leave a crater.

Unbelievable.

This is as bad as the intellectually dishonest traitors at NIST who did the building 7 report.

As if a Hollywood effect fireball that dissipates ten stories above the building or else a secondary explosion from bombs planted in columns and walls etc inside the building could POSSIBLY have the same effect on the ground that large passenger plane completely exploding to disintegration at ground level just outside of the facade would have!

Just step back and think about how ridiculous the words are that you're typing before continuing with this nonsense.

QUOTE

What scientific proof? The damage not caused by an impact could have been caused by explosives.

Yes but the scientific proof we have is the north side approach evidence proving that the plane did not cause the physical damage.

This is why all pilots, experts, CIT detractors and ANYONE who has published a single thing on this issue are all unanimous on this fact and you are completely alone with your ridiculous assertion.

QUOTE

Several people told me that some of the comments I have made are not helping my case so I have stopped making them. You are hardly in a position to criticize anyone for badmouthing others. Your posts here and your enemies list do so in the extreme.

WE have NEVER attacked ANYONE because of their research or beliefs. We simply respond to people like you who attack us first unprovoked.

You personally attacked and threatened us entirely unprovoked.

Big difference there bucko.

It exposes a serious anger management issue on your part that I suggest you get help with as soon as possible.

QUOTE

You do misrepresent the facts about the Erik Dihle statement and will continue to say so.

No we don't.

We provide the facts. It's no secret that most people believed the plane hit and we did not claim otherwise about Erik Dihle. Plus the beginning part made that perfectly clear:

"We got up and ran outside, and the first few seconds very confusing we couldn't even tell, some people were yelling that a bomb had hit the Pentagon and a jet kept on going....no no no the jet ran into the building.

Clearly he was not stating that the jet DID keep going and we did not give that impression. All we did is include the relevant part which is that SOME people think that. You are grasping a straws for ANYTHING to dismiss the clear importance of this statement.

The CONFUSION is exactly what facilitated the deception.

We already KNOW that most people were fooled into believing the plane hit. What's important here is that Erik Dihle is a firsthand account proving that not EVERYONE was deceived.

I can't believe I have to explain this to you.

QUOTE

Roosevelt said the plane flew away to the south-west. You have stated that he said the plane flew away to the north. Please post the statement that supports that claim.

THE MALL ENTRANCE SIDE IS THE LANDMARK HE USED AND THAT IS TO THE NORTH.

He mistakenly said the impact point was southwest of him and he mistakenly said the mall entrance side was to the southwest to him PROVING he got confused when relaying cardinal directions.

It's that simple.

But it doesn't matter because him seeing a plane AT ALL is the ultimate confirmation of the flyover that has already been proven by the north side approach witnesses.

This is getting silly.

QUOTE

But you don't include the conflicting statements when you claim publicly that Eric's statement supports flyover, nor do you mention that Eric overheard them. You know most people will not listen to the full interview and think Eric's account is first hand. They will not know about the equally valid statements from the same location that conflict with the "confirmed by" claim you make.

Man this is insane.

Stop your desperate and disgusting lies now Sarns.

Dihle's quote is precluded with his statement that "SOME PEOPLE WERE SAYING"....and also included how he admits he was IN THE BUILDING DURING THE EXPLOSION but just in case you didn't get it we even pointed it out in the narrative for you!

"Although he personally did not see the plane, he said the first thing people reported was that a bomb went off and that a jet kept on going."

We couldn't possibly have been any more clear that he was not a firsthand witness to the plane.

There is NOTHING deceiving about that.

Your lies about how we presented this information is what is deceiving.

You'd have to be an idiot to think we presented this as a firsthand account. In fact nobody is that stupid. Not even you. This is an outright lie on your part in a blatant attempt at character assassination.

You are out of line Sarns.

Posted by: Craig Ranke CIT Nov 5 2009, 10:22 PM

QUOTE (chris sarns @ Nov 6 2009, 02:30 AM)

You did not ask them what the plane did after that. Robert Turcios and Chadwick Brooks saw where the plane went. When you were video-recording them you could see that. Chadwick even said he could see the whole thing but you did not ask if he saw the plane hit the building. That is what you were supposedly investigating and they could have told you. They didn't actually have to see it hit to know that. The plane would have dropped behind what was obstructing their view of the first floor.

We plainly state in National Security Alert that the interviews are edited for conciseness and that the full interviews are provided for free on our site.

We straight up asked Robert if he saw the plane fly over.

We don't hide the fact that they all believe the plane hit and that most ALL witnesses were deceived as intended exactly like how most ALL people were deceived into believing the towers collapsed from the planes and fire.

Too bad for you and the perpetrators that a north side approach scientifically proves it COULD NOT have hit.

That's why we have the backing of a team of pilots and also why all published hard core CIT detractors agree with us and NOT you on this scientific fact.

You aren't behaving logically Sarns.

You are reacting irrationally to this info because of your admitted personal grudge against us even though you have never met us or had communication with us beyond this thread and one phone call.

Oh yeah and your unprovoked email threats on behalf of Richard Gage.

Posted by: albertchampion Nov 5 2009, 11:29 PM

CIT....would you please reveal this chris sams' relationship to richard gage and architects and engineers for 911 truth.

is it you opinion that chris sams is functioning as an agent of that group to torpedo your work.

i want to know.

i have supported gage. but if he is energizing this clown, i want to ask for my money back.

all ears

Posted by: Craig Ranke CIT Nov 6 2009, 12:43 AM

QUOTE (albertchampion @ Nov 6 2009, 05:29 AM)

CIT....would you please reveal this chris sams' relationship to richard gage and architects and engineers for 911 truth.

I'm not quite sure. Maybe Sarns will let us know.

QUOTE

is it you opinion that chris sams is functioning as an agent of that group to torpedo your work.

No not at all.

Unlike Sarns, Richard Gage is a logical and reasonable person who was easily able to understand the importance of what we have accomplished which is why he endorsed National Security Alert.

Even more importantly, after being barraged with lies and distortions about the info and us personally by people who have an unreasonable agenda against CIT and all Pentagon attack research Gage was man enough to call me and meet with me in person before rushing to judgment.

The result was very positive as he stands by his endorsement to this day despite all the pseudo-controversy surrounding us fueled by unreasonable people like Sarns.

QUOTE

i have supported gage. but if he is energizing this clown, i want to ask for my money back.

all ears

That is a commendable offer but there is no need for that.

We support Gage and his work as he does us.

Posted by: painter Nov 6 2009, 01:00 AM

I'm of the opinion that this board should not be a publication platform for proven liars. Sarns has repeatedly misrepresented what CIT has said and done. Repeatedly in this thread. It's not a matter of not being familiar with CIT's work -- or, if it is, that is yet another case of Sarns misrepresentation -- it is now obvious that Sarns is not objective and his agenda is to misrepresent with bald-faced lies. This is not to mention that the plane/bomb hypothesis is laughable. An explosion powerful enough to shred the ENTIRE aircraft (including all the airframe, landing gear and engines) and NOT devastate the immediate area is simply absurd.

on that and on Sarns' continued participation on this board.

Posted by: painter Nov 6 2009, 01:04 AM

QUOTE (Craig Ranke CIT @ Nov 5 2009, 09:43 PM)

We support Gage and his work as he does us.

I'm very glad to hear that. CIT is supported by many respected people within the truth movement, as well they should be.

Posted by: albertchampion Nov 6 2009, 01:28 AM

thnx for your response.

Posted by: chris sarns Nov 6 2009, 01:30 AM

QUOTE

You did not ask them what the plane did after that.

QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Nov 4 2009, 01:58 AM)

Yes they did. Chris, your ignorance of this topic is very unbecoming.

My bad.

QUOTE

Robert said he wasn't sure what happened after that as all he saw was a big fireball. He assumed the aircraft hit.

Your bad. He said he saw the plane fly straight into the Pentagon.

Robert: I saw it lift up a little bit to get over . . . . . the do not enter sign.Craig: So it flew up to go over that?Robert: Yes. I could not totally see when it hit the Pentagon. All I saw was it headed straight to it and then the big explosion, just a fireball and lots of smoke.Craig: Did you see it ac . . . You didn't see it hit the Pentagon?

Changed from a positive question to a negative one mid sentence, reinforcing didn't hit. Had he asked "Did you actually see it hit the Pentagon" he would have gotten the explanation which would be something like "It flew straight into the Pentagon at the bottom but my view of that part was obstructed."

Robert: No, The view was obstructed still and I could only see the fire ball from the explosion. Craig: Did you see it hit any light poles?Robert: No, I may have missed that. I just saw it pick up, just to make . . . Craig: You saw it pick up to miss that? Rather than hit any light poles. Did you see it fly over the Pentagon?Robert: Fly over the Pentagon??? [He was surprised anyone would ask that question] No, the only thing I saw was a direct line to go into the Pentagon. Coli. . Craig: OK, you didn't see it then. [interrupts to avoid further explanation and reaffirm didn’t see it]Robert: [while Craig is talking] Collided.Robert: No, I did not.Craig: Cause there was other planes as well. [move on to something else]

Net result:Robert saw the plane fly straight into the Pentagon but this is superbly obfuscated and never acknowledged.

Posted by: Craig Ranke CIT Nov 6 2009, 01:40 AM

Psssst....Sarns.....ALL of the north side witnesses were deceived into believing the plane hit.

This is how the deception worked but it does not change the fact that it is scientifically impossible for a plane on the north side to cause the physical damage.

Physics do not lie.

This is why a team of pilots as well as all of our detractors who have published anything on the issue agree with us on this fact and NOBODY agrees with you.

The more you continue with this foolishness fueled by an admitted yet unprovoked personal grudge against us the sillier you look.

Posted by: Craig Ranke CIT Nov 6 2009, 01:48 AM

Isn't it amazing how this Sarns guy has been personally attacking us so relentlessly for weeks yet he just revealed how he has only JUST NOW viewed Robert Turcios' full interview in The PentaCon tonight?

The arrogance is mind-numbing.

Posted by: Craig Ranke CIT Nov 6 2009, 02:00 AM

QUOTE (chris sarns @ Nov 6 2009, 06:30 AM)

Robert: I saw it lift up a little bit to get over . . . . . the do not enter sign.Craig: So it flew up to go over that?Robert: Yes. I could not totally see when it hit the Pentagon All I saw was it headed straight to it and then the big explosion, just a fireball and lots of smoke.Craig: Did you see it ac . . . You didn't see it hit the Pentagon?

Changed from a positive question to a negative one mid sentence, reinforcing didn't hit. Had he asked "Did you actually see it hit the Pentagon" he would have gotten the explanation which would be something like "It flew straight into the Pentagon at the bottom but my view of that part was obstructed."

I just noticed your little deceptive interjection here trying to talk for Turcios.

He ALREADY said that he did NOT see it hit due to the chaotic moment and the fireball. You have no right saying what he would have said if I didn't re-phrase the question to simply confirm what he already told me.

Plus if he saw the highway sign there in no reason he couldn't see the bottom floor. The only thing he says that "obstructed" him was the "fireball".

Furthermore if the plane is LIFTING UP over the highway and NOT hitting light poles as he describes it is NOT entering the building perfectly low and level on the first floor without hitting the lawn.

The fact that you would try to spin Robert Turcios' account into supporting an impact is complete and utter proof that you have no interest whatsoever in truth and are working off a pure deceptive and twisted agenda from only God knows what demented motive.

Posted by: rob balsamo Nov 6 2009, 02:23 AM

QUOTE (chris sarns @ Nov 6 2009, 01:30 AM)

Robert: I saw it lift up a little bit to get over . . . . . the do not enter sign.Craig: So it flew up to go over that?Robert: Yes. I could not totally see when it hit the Pentagon. All I saw was ....... the big explosion, just a fireball and lots of smoke.

Amazing how a change in bolding shows the real interpretation of the statement huh?

I fixed your above quote...

Posted by: Craig Ranke CIT Nov 6 2009, 02:30 AM

QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Nov 6 2009, 07:23 AM)

Amazing how a change in bolding shows the real interpretation of the statement huh?

No kidding.

It's clear this guy Sarns is not above any of the cheapest and most pathetic spin tactics in the book.

His desperation is so transparent it's awkward to have to witness.

Posted by: chris sarns Nov 6 2009, 02:34 AM

QUOTE (Craig Ranke CIT @ Nov 4 2009, 05:40 AM)

Psssst....Sarns.....ALL of the north side witnesses were deceived into believing the plane hit.

Craig, when you asked: "Did you see it fly over the Pentagon?" he said NOHe could see all but the bottom floor. If it had flown over, he would have seen it.He went on to say "the only thing I saw was a direct line to go into the Pentagon. Collided [= ran into]

QUOTE

This is how the deception worked but it does not change the fact that it is scientifically impossible for a plane on the north side to cause the physical damage.

You are the one doing the deceiving and it is not necessary for the plane to do all the damage.

Posted by: Craig Ranke CIT Nov 6 2009, 02:35 AM

QUOTE (chris sarns @ Nov 6 2009, 06:30 AM)

Net result:Robert saw the plane fly straight into the Pentagon but this is superbly obfuscated and never acknowledged.

And wtf is this?

Superbly obfuscated?

The fact that ALL the witnesses believe the plane hit has been FULLY acknowledged since day one since OBVIOUSLY these details were left in the footage.

I keep realizing how snide and deceptive each sentence you type is.

First you criticize me for not asking something that I CLEARLY DID ASK, and then when you realize I asked it you accuse us of not "acknowledging" it????

Where do you get off?

What kind of madness is this?

Posted by: Craig Ranke CIT Nov 6 2009, 02:40 AM

QUOTE (chris sarns @ Nov 6 2009, 07:34 AM)

Craig, when you asked: "Did you see it fly over the Pentagon?" he said NOHe could see all but the bottom floor. If it had flown over, he would have seen it.He went on to say "the only thing I saw was a direct line to go into the Pentagon. Collided [= ran into]

You are the one doing the deceiving and it is not necessary for the plane to do all the damage.

He told ME first that the fireball and explosion is all he saw.

So did Lagasse.

This is typical because this is how the deception worked.

We know this because it is physically impossible for a plane on the north side to cause ANY of the physical damage.

This is a scientific fact that you can not change Sarns.

This is why I have a team of pilots and ALL of our published detractors unanimously supporting me on this fact.

You have proven yourself irrational and deceptive and NOBODY supports you on this issue.

Posted by: chris sarns Nov 6 2009, 02:42 AM

QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Nov 4 2009, 06:23 AM)

Amazing how a change in bolding shows the real interpretation of the statement huh?

I fixed your above quote...

Can you fix these?

I could not totally see when it hit the Pentagon. All I saw was it headed straight to it and then the big explosion, just a fireball and lots of smoke.

Craig: Did you see it fly over the Pentagon?No, the only thing I saw was a direct line to go into the Pentagon.Collided: crash into something!!!

Posted by: chris sarns Nov 6 2009, 02:46 AM

QUOTE (Craig Ranke CIT @ Nov 4 2009, 06:00 AM)

The fact that you would try to spin Robert Turcios' account into supporting an impact flyover is complete and utter proof that you have no interest whatsoever in truth and are working off a pure deceptive and twisted agenda from only God knows what demented motive.

Fixed that for you.

Posted by: chris sarns Nov 6 2009, 03:00 AM

QUOTE (Craig Ranke CIT @ Nov 4 2009, 06:40 AM)

He told ME first that the fireball and explosion is all he saw.

He also told you "it headed straight to it" [the Pentagon]and"the only thing I saw was a direct line to go into the Pentagon."and[the plane] collided [crashed into the Pentagon]

You hang on the fact that he didn't see the actual crash because it was below his field of view and ignore the places where he says it flew into the Pentagon. - Collided.

Posted by: chris sarns Nov 6 2009, 04:24 AM

QUOTE (albertchampion @ Nov 4 2009, 03:29 AM)

CIT....would you please reveal this chris sams' relationship to richard gage and architects and engineers for 911 truth.

is it you opinion that chris sams is functioning as an agent of that group to torpedo your work.

i want to know.

i have supported gage. but if he is energizing this clown, i want to ask for my money back.

Posted by: Skeptik Nov 6 2009, 06:34 AM

"The wingspan of a 737 is 112 feet shorter and the tail 3 feet lower than a 757."

Er... according to Boeing, the wingspan of a 757 is 124.10" Therefore the wingspan of a 737 must be 12'10"

Or...according to Boeing, the wingspan of a 737 is 117'5". Therefore the wingspan of a 757 must be 229'5"

Or....Chris Sarn is a very sloppy researcher.

Posted by: chris sarns Nov 6 2009, 08:28 AM

QUOTE (Skeptik @ Nov 4 2009, 09:34 AM)

"The wingspan of a 737 is 112 feet shorter and the tail 3 feet lower than a 757."

Er... according to Boeing, the wingspan of a 757 is 124.10" Therefore the wingspan of a 737 must be 12'10"

Or...according to Boeing, the wingspan of a 737 is 117'5". Therefore the wingspan of a 757 must be 229'5"

Or....Chris Sarn is a very sloppy researcher.

Oops :-) Chris the sloppy typist. BTW: It's Sarns not Sarn. ;-)That should read:"The wingspan of a 737 is 12 feet shorter and the tail 3 feet lower than a 757."

Posted by: Craig Ranke CIT Nov 6 2009, 09:48 AM

It is physically impossible for a plane on the north side to cause ANY of the physical damage.

This is a scientific fact that you can not change Sarns.

This is why I have a team of pilots and ALL of our published detractors unanimously supporting me on this fact.

You have proven yourself irrational and deceptive and NOBODY supports you on this issue.

Obviously logic, reason, facts, and science can not get through that cantaloupe over your skull due to your admitted personal grudge against us.

You are intellectually bankrupt and this thread will go nowhere just like your ridiculous disintegrating 737 theory.

Posted by: Craig Ranke CIT Nov 6 2009, 09:54 AM

QUOTE (chris sarns @ Nov 6 2009, 10:24 AM)

I am here as an individual.

We asked you what your relationship is to Gage in general.

Apparently there is none making it more apparent that your decision to level threats on his behalf was an uncontrollable emotional tirade coming from the mind of a very angry and likely delusional man.

Posted by: Craig Ranke CIT Nov 6 2009, 10:15 AM

For the record.....immediately after Sarns' threat against us on behalf of Richard Gage I copied Gage on my reply.

Within a couple of hours I received an apology from Sarns which was accepted.

That has been revoked since Sarns chose to take his personal attacks against us public on 911blogger where he knew we had been http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=817 and would not be able to reply.

I would have never said a word about it publicly if he was able to control himself and address this information like a rational human being. Clearly that is not something he is capable of so the truth about my only other interaction with this man outside of this thread deserves to be known.

Posted by: chris sarns Nov 6 2009, 10:47 AM

QUOTE (Craig Ranke CIT @ Nov 4 2009, 01:48 PM)

It is physically impossible for a plane on the north side to cause ANY of the physical damage.

You keep saying that as if repeating it over and over will make it true. It isn't true.

How can you say these witnesses were deceived? You asked and they told you they saw the plane hit the building. Sgt. Lagasse described in detail how it hit.

Sgt. Brooks: As you can see that's the impact point, and as you can see right now, anybody standing in this current location where I'm at, can actually see that, uh, straight on right there. There's nothing blocking, there was actually nothing blocking at the time. So there was a straight shot.

Craig: When you were standing right here looking toward the Pentagon and you saw the plane in a rapid descent past the station on the north side of the station, what did you see?

Sgt. Brooks: Ok what I'd seen then was the plane going directly in front of the building and what seemed to be a quick second we just seen a 'boom', and everything just, a great ball of fire just go straight up in the air. And it just, right on the impact. Just a great ball of fire.

Craig: were you actually able to see the plane hit the building?

Sgt. Brooks: Correct, from this location, where I'm standing right now, directly turning around and watching that plane literally go into…the Pentagon which is currently located over there...directly.

It was a big plane. I don't know if it's a 737. I'm assuming it was a 737.

Sgt Lagasse: Yawed substantially into the building. It kinda made a, it kinda swooped into the building, which I guess is indicative but hitting the building, it kinda, you know, smashed into it.

Craig: Can you describe that again. It did a what into the building?

Sgt. Lagasse: A yaw. It moved on its yaw axis, meaning the tail, instead of the plane just doing this, kinda [motions one hand into the other] from here it looked like the tail went in, it didn't hit at a 90 degree angle, it was not flush, it hit off center. [motions one hand into the other at a 45 degree angle] It wasn't like it went in this way, [motions one hand into the other at 90 degree angle] it went in at an angle.

And you are calling me delusional???

Posted by: Sanders Nov 6 2009, 11:22 AM

Isn't the official account very specific, from the downing of the light poles to the path through the Pentagon? Isn't that path specific to an official south-of-CITCO path? If I am not mistaken, any other path, i.e. a North of CITCO path, is inconsistent with the official account and with the damage documented?

Isn't that the whole point here?

Just trying to get to the jist of it ... if I am somehow mistaken, someone please correct me.

Posted by: Craig Ranke CIT Nov 6 2009, 12:02 PM

QUOTE (Sanders @ Nov 6 2009, 04:22 PM)

Isn't the official account very specific, from the downing of the light poles to the path through the Pentagon? Isn't that path specific to an official south-of-CITCO path? If I am not mistaken, any other path, i.e. a North of CITCO path, is inconsistent with the official account and with the damage documented?

Isn't that the whole point here?

Just trying to get to the jist of it ... if I am somehow mistaken, someone please correct me.

Sarns agrees with the witnesses that the plane was on the north side and believes the physical damage was staged including the light poles, generator trailer, C-ring hole, and apparently most of the damage to the building but he considers the notion of a flyover "fruit loops" so he as engaged in a campaign to personally attack CIT and discredit Roosevelt Roberts Jr.

Apparently physics and evidence is not important to Chris Sarns.

Posted by: chris sarns Nov 6 2009, 12:19 PM

QUOTE (Sanders @ Nov 4 2009, 03:22 PM)

Isn't the official account very specific, from the downing of the light poles to the path through the Pentagon? Isn't that path specific to an official south-of-CITCO path? If I am not mistaken, any other path, i.e. a North of CITCO path, is inconsistent with the official account and with the damage documented?

Isn't that the whole point here?

Just trying to get to the jist of it ... if I am somehow mistaken, someone please correct me.

The north path proves the government is lying and the light poles were staged. So does this photo:http://img35.imageshack.us/img35/650/pole5.jpg

The point in question is the whether or not the plane hit the Pentagon.At 14:37 in this video, it establishes the north path is aerodynamically possible. The radius is 4,974 feet. It crosses the Pentagon at the impact point but leaves the Pentagon on the south-EAST side headed south-EAST. A commercial airliner could not turn fast enough to be anywhere over the south parking lot, much less at the west end where Roosevelt says it was, nor could it turn and fly over the Mall side. Therefore, Roosevelt is not a witness for flyover.http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=15854

Four witnesses said it was a 757 and four said it was a 737. A 737 and a 757 look very similar.http://img39.imageshack.us/img39/7034/757737sm.jpg

Many others said it was a large airplane.

Posted by: Craig Ranke CIT Nov 6 2009, 12:40 PM

QUOTE (chris sarns @ Nov 6 2009, 03:47 PM)

You keep saying that as if repeating it over and over will make it true. It isn't true.

Yes it is true.

It is a scientific fact which is why a team of pilots and all CIT detractors who have ever published anything on the issue agree with me and not you.

QUOTE

How can you say these witnesses were deceived? You asked and they told you they saw the plane hit the building. Sgt. Lagasse described in detail how it hit.

By this logic you are suggesting that witnesses to the WTC collapse who believe it was caused by the planes and subsequent fires refute the scientific evidence for controlled demo.

It's amazing that you are having trouble grasping the concept of deception when discussing this issue.

QUOTE

And you are calling me delusional???

Reading comprehension?

I said:"your decision to level threats on his behalf was an uncontrollable emotional tirade coming from the mind of a very angry and likely delusional man."

Since you are unwilling to reveal whether or not you have a relationship with Gage we can only assume that you do not.

IF this is the case then your decision to level threats on his behalf is not only inappropriate but, yes, delusional.

Perhaps you'll be willing to clear that up for us.

Posted by: Aldo Marquis CIT Nov 6 2009, 02:13 PM

And so, this 757 landing gear...

And this 757 wheel rim...

...both found next to or in the C-Ring, near the alleged exit hole, were magically able to explode from a 737 and fly through forest of exploding columns three rings in and make the C-Ring exit hole?

The 757 RB211 combustion case they found in the Pentagon? That came from the 737?

Posted by: Craig Ranke CIT Nov 6 2009, 02:32 PM

Aldo since he agrees with the witnesses regarding a north side approach and agrees with us that this proves the light poles, generator trailer, C-ring hole and most damage to the building was staged, as well as the fact that the security video was manipulated, I'm quite sure he will have no problem agreeing with us that those parts were planted.

But you see he has claimed that we're "fruit loops" and he is rational for completely dismissing Roosevelt Roberts and suggesting his 737 loaded up with bombs completely disintegrated at ground level without leaving a crater in the ground or any trace of recognizable 737 debris at all.

Posted by: Aldo Marquis CIT Nov 6 2009, 02:41 PM

Well the problem he runs into is why would you plant 757 parts if they are going to be found along side 737 parts? Which begs the question why would you say it's a 757 that hit the Pentagon and then destroy a 737 outside the building?

Knuckleheadedness

Posted by: Craig Ranke CIT Nov 6 2009, 02:53 PM

QUOTE (Aldo Marquis CIT @ Nov 6 2009, 07:41 PM)

Well the problem he runs into is why would you plant 757 parts if they are going to be found along side 737 parts? Which begs the question why would you say it's a 757 that hit the Pentagon and then destroy a 737 outside the building?

Knuckleheadedness

Because they had special bombs that are designed to disintegrate entire planes at ground level without damaging the lawn.

Sheesh Aldo.

You must be fruit loops.

Posted by: chris sarns Nov 6 2009, 03:18 PM

Subject shift noted.How can you use government evidence of 757 parts to discredit my theory without discrediting your own?

All 3 witnesses at the Citgo station said the plane flew into the Pentagon. Two saw it completely and one not totally. Sean Boger saw the plane hit the Pentagon. You did not mention that in 'National Security Alert' because you think someone deceived them into just thinking they saw what they saw.

Your only first hand witness did not see the north path plane fly over the Pentagon. The plane he saw fly away to the south-west, could not have been the north path plane.

Posted by: Craig Ranke CIT Nov 6 2009, 03:26 PM

QUOTE (chris sarns @ Nov 6 2009, 08:18 PM)

Subject shift noted.How can you use government evidence of 757 parts to discredit my theory without discrediting your own?

Easily.

You claim the plane hit and we provide scientific proof that it did not.

Witnesses believing an impact at the Pentagon do not refute their placement of the plane on the north side proving it did not hit any more than witnesses of the WTC collapse who were deceived into believing the buildings fell due to the planes and subsequent fire refute the evidence for controlled demo.

It is physically impossible for a plane on the north side to cause ANY of the physical damage.

This is a scientific fact that you can not change Sarns.

This is why I have a team of pilots and ALL of our published detractors unanimously supporting me on this fact.

You have proven yourself irrational and deceptive and NOBODY supports you on this issue.

Obviously logic, reason, facts, and science can not get through that cantaloupe over your skull due to your admitted personal grudge against us.

You are intellectually bankrupt and this thread will go nowhere just like your ridiculous disintegrating 737 theory.

Posted by: chris sarns Nov 6 2009, 08:59 PM

QUOTE (Craig Ranke CIT @ Nov 4 2009, 07:26 PM)

You claim the plane hit and we provide scientific proof that it did not.

What scientific evidence?

QUOTE

Witnesses believing an impact at the Pentagon do not refute their placement of the plane on the north side

Correct

QUOTE

proving it did not hit

Incorrect

QUOTE

It is physically impossible for a plane on the north side to cause ANY of the physical damage.

P4T proved that a plane on the north could hit the Pentagon at the impact point.At 14:37 in this video, P4T establishes the north path is aerodynamically possible.http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=15854

This is a scientific fact that you can not change.

P4T confirms a plane on the north path could not hit the light poles but they do not refute the fact that plane on the north path could descend and hit the Pentagon as 4 of your witnesses said it did.

Posted by: Craig Ranke CIT Nov 7 2009, 12:58 AM

QUOTE (chris sarns @ Nov 7 2009, 02:59 AM)

P4T proved that a plane on the north could hit the Pentagon at the impact point.At 14:37 in this video, P4T establishes the north path is aerodynamically possible.http://img39.imageshack.us/img39/7034/757737sm.jpg

This is a scientific fact that you can not change.

P4T confirms a plane on the north path could not hit the light poles but they do not refute the fact that plane on the north path could descend and hit the Pentagon as 4 of your witnesses said it did.

Nobody denies that it could HYPOTHETICALLY hit the building on a north path Sarns.

But EVERYONE knows for a FACT that it is physically impossible to cause the damage.

Stop making a fool of yourself by making claims for others when you don't even understand what they have said.

Posted by: chris sarns Nov 7 2009, 02:43 AM

QUOTE (Craig Ranke CIT @ Nov 5 2009, 03:58 AM)

Nobody denies that it could HYPOTHETICALLY hit the building on a north path

And I never claimed that it did. I offered a hypothesis for consideration. Debate on these forums is for people to test hypotheses by making arguments for and against. Rob checked out the wind direction and ruled that out leaving "It didn't come out of the turn as planned." Do you have a better explanation for why the plane was north of the staged light poles?

QUOTE

But EVERYONE knows for a FACT that it is physically impossible to cause the damage.

If you mean all the damage, yes. A plane hitting the Pentagon on the north path would cause the damage to the first two floors. We agree that the interior damage and the hole in the C ring were caused by explosives. We agree the light poles were staged. The generator damage was not caused by the airplane. The fence post is bent out away from the building. If you disagree, just state your reasons.http://img689.imageshack.us/img689/5386/generatorfencebentout.jpg

Also know that I am ready to scrap everything I believe in a heartbeat if someone presents conclusive evidence of something else.

Posted by: Craig Ranke CIT Nov 7 2009, 01:16 PM

QUOTE (chris sarns @ Nov 7 2009, 08:43 AM)

And I never claimed that it did. I offered a hypothesis for consideration. Debate on these forums is for people to test hypotheses by making arguments for and against. Rob checked out the wind direction and ruled that out leaving "It didn't come out of the turn as planned."

Huh?

That is not his conclusion as a result of the wind.

You clearly have no clue as to what you are talking about.

QUOTE

Do you have a better explanation for why the plane was north of the staged light poles?

Yes and we mention it in National Security Alert so I am not going to bother explaining it to you here because you are lazy and and have a low attention span.

You have already proven that you are unresearched on this info and have not even viewed the full interviews or all of the evidence we present.

You have been personally attacking us for weeks without even having viewed all the evidence or remotely understanding our full stated position!

This is ridiculous.

Your behavior is beyond intellectually dishonest.

It's quite disgusting.

QUOTE

If you mean all the damage, yes. A plane hitting the Pentagon on the north path would cause the damage to the first two floors. We agree that the interior damage and the hole in the C ring were caused by explosives. We agree the light poles were staged. The generator damage was not caused by the airplane. The fence post is bent out away from the building. If you disagree, just state your reasons.http://img689.imageshack.us/img689/5386/generatorfencebentout.jpg

Also know that I am ready to scrap everything I believe in a heartbeat if someone presents conclusive evidence of something else.

Sarns you are not worth my time anymore.

Your position is absurd and you are clearly emotionally reacting out of a fear of being rejected from your blogger clique.

Posted by: chris sarns Nov 7 2009, 09:08 PM

You did not address the point which is: The plane does not need to do all the damage.

You agree that:"Nobody denies that it could HYPOTHETICALLY hit the building on a north path."

In other words, the plane on the north path could have hit the building.

This is what you use to support your claim that the plane did not hit the building."But EVERYONE knows for a FACT that it is physically impossible to cause the damage."

This statement implies the plane must do all the damage or it did not hit the Pentagon. You know that is not true so why do you claim that this proves the plane did not hit the Pentagon?

Posted by: Craig Ranke CIT Nov 7 2009, 09:51 PM

QUOTE (chris sarns @ Nov 8 2009, 03:08 AM)

You did not address the point which is: The plane does not need to do all the damage.

It can not do ANY of it.

The plane had to completely disintegrate by your loaded up bombs and that notion is ridiculous.

QUOTE

You agree that:"Nobody denies that it could HYPOTHETICALLY hit the building on a north path."

In other words, the plane on the north path could have hit the building.

Do you not know what the word hypothetically means?

The point is that it can not cause any of the physical damage as photographed and reported.

NONE of it is reconcilable with a plane on the north side approach so for the plane to not flyover it would had to have completely disintegrated.

Impossible and ridiculous ESPECIALLY without causing a massive crater in the ground.

Just stop this desperate ridiculousness.

QUOTE

This is what you use to support your claim that the plane did not hit the building."But EVERYONE knows for a FACT that it is physically impossible to cause the damage."

This statement implies the plane must do all the damage or it did not hit the Pentagon. You know that is not true so why do you claim that this proves the plane did not hit the Pentagon?

No it doesn't imply that nor have I claimed that.

The factual statement which is backed up by all CIT detractors and supporters who have published anything on this issue is that the plane MUST be on the south side to cause ANY of the physical damage as photographed and reported.

Go away Sarns.

Posted by: chris sarns Nov 7 2009, 09:54 PM

From the OpEd article:

"The eyewitnesses in all of the most critical vantage points, on the other hand, independently, unanimously, and unequivocally report a drastically different flight path, proving that the plane absolutely could not have hit the light poles or the building."

This statement is not true.

You acknowledge that a plane on the north path could have hit the building.

"Nobody denies that it could HYPOTHETICALLY hit the building on a north path."Hypothetically: involving ideas or possibilities

What other reasons you may have for the plane not hitting the Pentagon are a separate matter.

The witnesses prove the light poles were staged but they do not prove the plane did not hit the Pentagon.

In fact, they prove just the opposite. Sgt. Brooks and Sgt. Lagasse saw the plane hit the building. Robert Turcios had an unobstructed view of all but the bottom floor. When you asked him if the plane flew over the Pentagon he said NO. Sean Boger said he saw the plane hit the Pentagon. There are NO witnesses who say they saw the plane fly over the pentagon.

You did a lot of excellent investigation and proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the plane did not fly where the government said it did, but you went a bridge too far.

You selectively chose what you wanted to believe and not believe. You would be laughed out of any court.

Posted by: Craig Ranke CIT Nov 8 2009, 01:21 AM

QUOTE (chris sarns @ Nov 8 2009, 02:54 AM)

From the OpEd article:

"The eyewitnesses in all of the most critical vantage points, on the other hand, independently, unanimously, and unequivocally report a drastically different flight path, proving that the plane absolutely could not have hit the light poles or the building."

This statement is not true.

You acknowledge that a plane on the north path could have hit the building.

"Nobody denies that it could HYPOTHETICALLY hit the building on a north path."Hypothetically: involving ideas or possibilities

So apparently you DON'T know what the word hypothetically means!

This is wild.

Ok one more time....

The point is that it can not cause any of the physical damage as photographed and reported.

NONE of it is reconcilable with a plane on the north side approach so for the plane to not flyover it would had to have completely disintegrated.

Impossible and ridiculous ESPECIALLY without causing a massive crater in the ground.

Just stop this desperate ridiculousness.

Posted by: chris sarns Nov 8 2009, 01:56 AM

QUOTE (Craig Ranke CIT @ Nov 6 2009, 04:21 AM)

So apparently you DON'T know what the word hypothetically means!

Hypothetically: involving ideas or possibilities [Windows dictionary]You acknowledge that it was possible for the north path plane to hit the Pentagon.Correct?ETA: P4T has established that it was aerodynamically possible for the north path plane to hit the Pentagon.What happened after that is another matter.

The point is that it can not cause any of the physical damage as photographed and reported.You are saying that a plane on the north path would not do ANY damage when it hit the Pentagon.

ETA: You did not respond to this part:The witnesses prove the light poles were staged but they do not prove the plane did not hit the Pentagon.

In fact, they prove just the opposite. Sgt. Brooks and Sgt. Lagasse saw the plane hit the building. Robert Turcios had an unobstructed view of all but the bottom floor. When you asked him if the plane flew over the Pentagon he said NO. Sean Boger said he saw the plane hit the Pentagon. There are NO witnesses who say they saw the plane fly over the pentagon.

You did a lot of excellent investigation and proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the plane did not fly where the government said it did, but you went a bridge too far.

You selectively chose what you wanted to believe and not believe. You would be laughed out of any court.

Posted by: painter Nov 8 2009, 12:14 PM

QUOTE (chris sarns @ Nov 7 2009, 10:56 PM)

You are saying that a plane on the north path would not do ANY damage when it hit the Pentagon.

Not "would not," DID NOT -- because it did not impact.

QUOTE

The witnesses prove the light poles were staged but they do not prove the plane did not hit the Pentagon.

QUOTE (Aldo Marquis CIT @ Nov 4 2009, 03:28 PM)

Is it disruption? Disinfo? Distraction? Subterfuge? Ego?

Incapable of putting 2 & 2 together?

You rant about CIT cherry picking and yet all you do is choose one data set over another. First it was Roselvet Roberts to the exclusion of everyone else, now its the NOC witnesses to the exclusion of the damage at the Pentagon clearly outlined in NSA. Once again: There is no damage consistent with a NOC approach as described by the witnesses -- nor is there any evidence consistent with a "plane bomb".

Yes, we all know what a hypothesis is. We all understand that a good hypothesis has to account for ALL the observed events and evidence and NOT rely upon "possibilities" for which there is no evidence.

So lets cut the crap, Sarns:

What evidence of an impact do you have that is consistent with a witnessed NOC approach?

If your hypothesis is that the NOC approach plane did not impact, then what is your explanation for what happened to it and what evidence do you have to support it?

Posted by: chris sarns Nov 8 2009, 08:20 PM

You seem to think it's up to me to prove the plane hit the Pentagon. Such is not the case. I offered a hypothesis. You all act like I did something terrible. I suggested another possibility that the explosives were in the construction trailers. These were just suggestions of what might account for the results. I do not claim that's what happened nor did I make a video saying had proof.

CIT made a video claiming their witnesses proved the plane did not hit the Pentagon, and that proves flyover.

P4T made a video proving a plane on the north path could hit the Pentagon.

Four of CIT's witnesses said the plane hit the Pentagon.

2 + 2 = 4 The plane hit the Pentagon.

Their only "flyover witness" does not support the P4T analysis showing which direction the plane would have flow away.

CIT is "cherry picking" the statements by their own witnesses and disregarding that which disproves their flyover theory.

You are arguing that the plane does not account for all the damage. The north path witnesses have no bearing on that, only the path the plane took.

The north path does not preclude the plane hitting the building as CIT claimed.

That is the point I have made.

Posted by: painter Nov 8 2009, 09:48 PM

QUOTE (painter @ Nov 8 2009, 09:14 AM)

What evidence of an impact do you have that is consistent with a witnessed NOC approach?

If your hypothesis is that the NOC approach plane did not impact, then what is your explanation for what happened to it and what evidence do you have to support it?

Posted by: chris sarns Nov 9 2009, 12:29 AM

ETC:You keep asking me for evidence that the plane did the damage to the building. You know what the damage is and what the evidence is. That is not what CIT is talking about. They said the north path proves that "the plane absolutely could not have hit the light poles or the building."

This is not true. The NOC witnesses do not prove the plane could not hit the building.P4T said it could hit the building on the NOC flight path.

I don't need to prove anything. I am just stating the facts as they are.

CIT's claim that the NOC flight path proves the plane did not hit the building is incorrect.

Do you think the damage to the building is possible with the official SOC approach?

If so, then why not on the NOC approach?

Is it possible that some of the damage to the building was caused by explosives?

Do you think Sgt.Brooks, Sgt. Lagasse, Robert Turcios and Sean Boger are lying or delusional?

Posted by: StefanS Nov 9 2009, 12:39 PM

This conversation is a little comedic.

You seem to be the only person in the English speaking world who doesn't understand that when CIT say the plane "couldn't have hit the building" they mean it could not have caused the damage to the building, which is of course the only evidence which could be used to make a claim thatthat the plane did just that.

You seem to be trying to create a side show from a turn of phrase. Because CIT chose the words "hit the building" rather than "hit the building, causing the damage we saw on 9/11", you think you have an in-road to score a point?

It detracts from your credibility though, as no one else reading this will see any problem with the turn of phrase CIT use and you just appear to be a time waster.

The damage to the building is real, it actually happened, there is no sense saying "ah but the building could be hit by the plane causing different damage" because that different damage does not exist.

I realise that Boeing Impact Theorists have been slowly conditioned over the years to accept that the minimum wreckage and damage we saw at the Pentagon was perfectly normal, but are you really trying to tell us that the plane in fact flew from the north and caused no damage at all? And then damage was faked as though a plane had flown in from the south?

Have I got your theory right???

Posted by: chris sarns Nov 9 2009, 04:19 PM

QUOTE (StefanS @ Nov 7 2009, 03:39 PM)

You seem to be the only person in the English speaking world who doesn't understand that when CIT say the plane "couldn't have hit the building" they mean it could not have caused the damage to the building, which is of course the only evidence which could be used to make a claim that the plane did just that.

No. In English this means the different path proves the plane could not hit the building:"The eyewitnesses in all of the most critical vantage points, on the other hand, independently, unanimously, and unequivocally report a drastically different flight path, proving that the plane absolutely could not have hit the light poles or the building."

To mean what you think it means it would have to read:"The eyewitnesses in all of the most critical vantage points, on the other hand, independently, unanimously, and unequivocally reported a drastically different flight path. The plane absolutely could have hit the building on that path, but it didn't because it couldn't cause the damage we saw on 9/11."

But there's a bigger problem with the flyover theory.

All the CIT witnesses who could see the Pentagon independently, unanimously, and unequivocally said the plane hit the Pentagon. If you believe the witnesses then you believe the plane flew north of the Citgo station and hit the pentagon.

Posted by: StefanS Nov 10 2009, 11:37 AM

QUOTE (chris sarns @ Nov 9 2009, 04:19 PM)

No. In English this means the different path proves the plane could not hit the building:"The eyewitnesses in all of the most critical vantage points, on the other hand, independently, unanimously, and unequivocally report a drastically different flight path, proving that the plane absolutely could not have hit the light poles or the building."

WHAT? This is getting a bit surreal. Let's start by getting some agreements if you'd be happy to?

Do we agree or disagree that:

1) There was no damage indicating a plane hitting the building from a north path or any path other than the official one.

2) All damage to the building and surrounding area is reliant on the official flight path being 100% accurate, from the moment it hit the first lightpole onwards.

I'm going to assume that we do agree and move on accordingly.

The plane hitting the building and the damage it alledgedly caused are not two separate concepts you can divide in your mind for your convenience, this is reality not a logic puzzle. If a plane flying on any path other than the official one, it cannot have caused the damage we see therefore...

...it cannot have hit the building.

The only scenario that it could have is one where a Boeing hitting the building causes NO DAMAGE AT ALL, is this what you are proposing?

QUOTE

To mean what you think it means it would have to read:"The eyewitnesses in all of the most critical vantage points, on the other hand, independently, unanimously, and unequivocally reported a drastically different flight path. The plane absolutely could have hit the building on that path, but it didn't because it couldn't cause the damage we saw on 9/11."

But there's a bigger problem with the flyover theory.

Hold on? Can we go back to the place where you presented a SINGLE problem with the flyover theory? All you've done is indulge in semantics.

QUOTE

All the CIT witnesses who could see the Pentagon independently, unanimously, and unequivocally said the plane hit the Pentagon. If you believe the witnesses then you believe the plane flew north of the Citgo station and hit the pentagon.

Wow. I'd never thought of that before. I'm a fool and you're a genius![/irony]

Chris, do you think there is a single person who supports CIT who never thought that thought? That we were all waiting in ignorance for you to shine that light on us.

The problem is that where they saw the plane fly was between a few and up to 10-15 seconds of perception. The point of the explosion was an instant, and an extremely traumatic one that would cause people to flinch, duck, run away. Yes they might say the plane hit the Pentagon, they might believe they saw it, but if it flew on the north path THEY CANNOT HAVE SEEN IT.

Let's look at some of them. Sean Boger says he saw the plane hit - he also says he hit the deck - which is what you'd expect him to do. Lagasse says he saw the plane hit - he also says he found himself ducked inside his car at the point of "impact" - a natural response. Other witnesses were running away. This is how I would expect myself to act and how I expect them to act. I would also expect them to report the plane hit the building, because this is what I would believe had happened had I witnesed what they did.

It all makes sense, but your scenario doesn't.

While it is no problem whatsoever for me to imagine that people witnessing what CIT propose they witnessed might well conclude the plane hit the building - it is statistically and logically redundant to consider all these people are making such a fundamental misjudgement as to what side of their bodies the plane flew in such as way as to corroborate each other.

Completely implausible scenarioAll of the witnesses are mistaking left for right. Something to do with the water in virginia probably, anyway stop asking questions, don't you care about the future of the truth movement. Nothing should have hit the Pentagon!

Posted by: chris sarns Nov 10 2009, 01:30 PM

QUOTE (StefanS @ Nov 8 2009, 03:37 PM)

WHAT? This is getting a bit surreal. Let's start by getting some agreements if you'd be happy to?

Do we agree or disagree that:

1) There was no damage indicating a plane hitting the building from a north path or any path other than the official one.

No.

QUOTE

2) All damage to the building and surrounding area is reliant on the official flight path being 100% accurate, from the moment it hit the first lightpole onwards.

Not "all" the damage.

As I have said many times, a plane on the north path could cause some of the damage to the Pentagon and explosives caused the rest.

QUOTE

The problem is that where they saw the plane fly was between a few and up to 10-15 seconds of perception. The point of the explosion was an instant, and an extremely traumatic one that would cause people to flinch, duck, run away. Yes they might say the plane hit the Pentagon, they might believe they saw it, but if it flew on the north path THEY CANNOT HAVE SEEN IT.

Wrong. The witnesses at the Citgo station and control tower had a clear unobstructed view of the plane flying into the Pentagon. Robert Turcios' view of the actual collision was obstructed but he said the plane collided and it did NOT fly over the Pentagon. That part he could see.

To believe flyover you must hear what you want to hear and disregard the rest. Flyover will not fly other than on this forum and the CIT forum. Reasonable people will think you are nuts if you are honest enough to tell them the whole truth and include the part where all the witnesses who could see the Pentagon said the plane hit the Pentagon. CIT did not.

Posted by: StefanS Nov 11 2009, 09:10 AM

QUOTE (chris sarns @ Nov 10 2009, 02:30 PM)

No.

Not "all" the damage.

As I have said many times, a plane on the north path could cause some of the damage to the Pentagon and explosives caused the rest.

Wrong. The witnesses at the Citgo station and control tower had a clear unobstructed view of the plane flying into the Pentagon. Robert Turcios' view of the actual collision was obstructed but he said the plane collided and it did NOT fly over the Pentagon. That part he could see.

To believe flyover you must hear what you want to hear and disregard the rest. Flyover will not fly other than on this forum and the CIT forum. Reasonable people will think you are nuts if you are honest enough to tell them the whole truth and include the part where all the witnesses who could see the Pentagon said the plane hit the Pentagon. CIT did not.

So you're saying now that a plane flying in from the North would cause LESS damage than the damage we saw when it hit? And then, for no reason whatsoever, they decided to stage lightpole damage and damage to the building to suggest it flew on a slightly different path. Right?

Do you have an inkling of why no one is taking this theory of yours, or you, very seriously?

Posted by: StefanS Nov 11 2009, 09:54 AM

QUOTE (chris sarns @ Nov 10 2009, 02:30 PM)

To believe flyover you must hear what you want to hear and disregard the rest. Flyover will not fly other than on this forum and the CIT forum. Reasonable people will think you are nuts if you are honest enough to tell them the whole truth and include the part where all the witnesses who could see the Pentagon said the plane hit the Pentagon. CIT did not.

National Security Alert is a new abridged presentation - they make it massively clear that some of the witnesses think the plane hit the Pentagon in their original videos which are still online, they even plug them in the film itself. I became convinced of this material before NSA ever came out. I've always been perfectly aware that some witnesses thought it hit, so is everyone else here. There is no dishonesty at all in putting out an abridged video of the best evidence.

I've explained already why this is no problem for me, and why it makes perfect sense that some of these witnesses would report the plane hit the pentagon even if it didn't.

And on another note, where do you think we all came from? Do you think this forum or CIT forum sprung up with a full roster of posters? Everyone here attended to the evidence and found it to be credible in demonstrating a North of Citgo flight path. Once this is established it is clear to anyone not in the throes of the most comedic case of cognitive dissonance ever recorded on a forum in history understands that the plane cannot have hit the building. THEN we came here.

Your claim that no one out side this or this CIT forum buys the flyover is firstly simply not true. If you go to the Truth Action forum, or TruthMove or 911 visibility or look at a lot of the comments on blogger you might think it’s a "controversial debunked theory" - problem is all of the people generating that noise are part of the same clique and their numbers are extremely low. Of the further handful who slavishly hang on their every word, try and engage them in conversation about it and they admit pretty quickly they barely have any knowledge of what CIT are actually saying, but they "trust" the other side. It’s a massive con job.

In the real world I know ONE person who does not get what CIT are saying of all the truth activists I have met. ONE - and he refuses to debate the issue and has admitted to not watching their films.

What makes that person stand out among the others I know? He is a regular reader of Truth Action forum and a big fan of the clique there. What a surprise.

And you know what? The average person on the street, with no connection whatsoever to 9/11 truth, tends to be suspicious of the Pentagon and thinks very little about the WTC.

The response in this video of the policeman is pretty common:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q1Z1-t6qvWo

"Well everyone knows it was never a plane that went in there" (the Pentagon).

I helped run a 9/11 truth day at a friend's university at a point where I was in a "don't talk about the Pentagon" position myself and time after time students would argue about the WTC facts we had on display but much more freely offer that "the story at Pentagon is pretty dodgy though".

Even me, before I ever considered 9/11 and "inside job" never believed the story at the Pentagon. From day one I (and everyone around me) looked in disbeleif and said "a plane is supposed to have crashed there?". But I didn't even think 9/11 was an inside job. I assumed they were embarrassed about the security failure that would allow such a secure building to be bombed.

My friend, I realise that a small clique of individuals have spent a lot of time and effort in attempting to brain wash other truth activists into thinking the Pentagon is "dangerous" territory but in the mind of the general public it is no less accessable than the world trade centre.

You've been conned.

Posted by: Craig Ranke CIT Nov 11 2009, 10:24 AM

QUOTE (StefanS @ Nov 11 2009, 03:54 PM)

National Security Alert is a new abridged presentation - they make it massively clear that some of the witnesses think the plane hit the Pentagon in their original videos which are still online, they even plug them in the film itself. I became convinced of this material before NSA ever came out. I've always been perfectly aware that some witnesses thought it hit, so is everyone else here. There is no dishonesty at all in putting out an abridged video of the best evidence.

Precisely.

In fact we are quite clear in National Security Alert as well that the north side witnesses all believed the plane hit.

We straight up say it in the narrative more than once.

The notion that we are being dishonest about this is, well, dishonest.

Posted by: SwingDangler Nov 11 2009, 12:17 PM

Mr. Sarns, what plane did Roberts see seconds after the explosion?

Thanks for answering this.

Posted by: chris sarns Nov 11 2009, 03:13 PM

QUOTE (SwingDangler @ Nov 9 2009, 04:17 PM)

Mr. Sarns, what plane did Roberts see seconds after the explosion?

Thanks for answering this.

I don't know but it was not the "hijacked" plane that approached from the west.

Posted by: chris sarns Nov 11 2009, 03:18 PM

QUOTE (StefanS @ Nov 9 2009, 01:10 PM)

So you're saying now that a plane flying in from the North would cause LESS damage than the damage we saw when it hit? And then, for no reason whatsoever, they decided to stage lightpole damage and damage to the building to suggest it flew on a slightly different path. Right?

Wrong.

I am saying that the north path does not prove flyover.

Posted by: chris sarns Nov 11 2009, 03:37 PM

QUOTE (Craig Ranke CIT @ Nov 9 2009, 02:24 PM)

The notion that we are being dishonest about this is, well, dishonest.

You fraudulent claim that I am being dishonest by saying your are dishonest is, well, dishonest. ;-)

"In fact we are quite clear in National Security Alert as well that the north side witnesses all believed the plane hit."

"Believe" is fraudulent. That is your judgment. They had no doubt and not including their statements to that effect is dishonest.

Posted by: painter Nov 11 2009, 05:05 PM

Why are we providing a platform for this lame semantic BS? There is no evidence for a north side approach impact -- thus proving that the witnesses do, indeed, BELIEVE something that is false. Since there is no evidence of a plane impact from the north, the north approach proves a fly over -- unless one wants to dream up some other scenario -- for which we have no evidence. The only other option is the plane just vanished.

Posted by: Craig Ranke CIT Nov 11 2009, 07:11 PM

QUOTE (chris sarns @ Nov 11 2009, 09:13 PM)

I don't know but it was not the "hijacked" plane that approached from the west.

He says it approached from the alleged impact side which is from the west.

It's amazing how hard you will work spin information that fatally contradicts the official story.

Posted by: Craig Ranke CIT Nov 11 2009, 07:13 PM

QUOTE (painter @ Nov 11 2009, 11:05 PM)

Why are we providing a platform for this lame semantic BS? There is no evidence for a north side approach impact -- thus proving that the witnesses do, indeed, BELIEVE something that is false. Since there is no evidence of a plane impact from the north, the north approach proves a fly over -- unless one wants to dream up some other scenario -- for which we have no evidence. The only other option is the plane just vanished.

Some people are quite happy to ignore the laws of physics as means to spin information that conclusively proves the official story false.

Even alleged "truthers" if it isn't the way that they want the official story to be proven false.

Posted by: albertchampion Nov 11 2009, 10:23 PM

self-deception is an astonishing occurrence.

hey, i even know engineers who say that wtc 7 never collapsed.

i even know a few manhattanites that say it is still standing because tishman-speyer erected its replacement, without any fanfare, within a twinkling of an eye.

Posted by: chris sarns Nov 12 2009, 05:14 AM

QUOTE (painter @ Nov 9 2009, 09:05 PM)

There is no evidence for a north side approach impact. Since there is no evidence of a plane impact from the north, the north approach proves a fly over -- unless one wants to dream up some other scenario -- for which we have no evidence. The only other option is the plane just vanished.

You are talking nonsense. What caused this damage, termites?

Are you saying the south approach would make this damage but not the north side approach?

If you are saying that neither path could make this damage then you have just admitted that the CIT investigation did not prove anything you didn't already know about the possibility of flyover.

Posted by: chris sarns Nov 12 2009, 05:23 AM

QUOTE (Craig Ranke CIT @ Nov 9 2009, 11:11 PM)

He says it approached from the alleged impact side which is from the west.

Correct. He went on to say it flew away to the south-west.It's amazing how hard you will work spin information to say it flew away to the north.

Even if you were right, the plane approaching from the west could not make that turn either.

You know this yet you falsely claim that he was talking about the plane approaching from the west.

Posted by: chris sarns Nov 12 2009, 05:30 AM

QUOTE (Craig Ranke CIT @ Nov 9 2009, 11:13 PM)

Some people are quite happy to ignore the laws of physics

You are ignoring the law of physics that proves the plane could not make the turn Roosevelt describes.

You falsely claim that Roosevelt is a witness for flyover when he clearly is not.

Posted by: rob balsamo Nov 12 2009, 05:31 AM

QUOTE (chris sarns @ Nov 12 2009, 05:14 AM)

You are talking nonsense.

Chris, please keep your insulting opinions to yourself. My next reply may not be so polite.

QUOTE

Are you saying the south approach would make this damage but not the north side approach?

Chris, what caused this damage?

A. South Side approachB. North side approachC. StagedD. The photo is photoshoppedE. B and CF. Fill in the blank

After you answer the multiple choice above (or feel free to add your own through option F), I'll have more questions for you.

Posted by: StefanS Nov 12 2009, 06:04 AM

QUOTE (Craig Ranke CIT @ Nov 11 2009, 11:24 AM)

Precisely.

In fact we are quite clear in National Security Alert as well that the north side witnesses all believed the plane hit.

We straight up say it in the narrative more than once.

The notion that we are being dishonest about this is, well, dishonest.

Thanks Craig, I was pretty sure you had mentioned it in NSA but wasn't 100% so didn't want to go ahead and say it, especially since it still wouldn't be dishonest even if you didn't.

Posted by: StefanS Nov 12 2009, 06:13 AM

QUOTE (chris sarns @ Nov 12 2009, 06:30 AM)

You are ignoring the law of physics that proves the plane could not make the turn Roosevelt describes.

CIT never got to get an arial photo in front of Roberts, of have a full video interview where they could clear up exactly what he saw, his description of the movement of the plane seemed confused and off the top of his head. If they had managed to it might have shown that he was wrongly describing something that actually made a lot more sense.

I, for example, am terrible at giving people directions, even to places I know the exact location; I describe things badly. Give me a bit of paper and I'll draw a perfect map, but try and use my off-the-top-of-my-head verbal directions and you'll never find the place. Roberts could be the same.

There is a bigger problem with your viewpoint on Roberts - your view relies on him thinking he saw something (a large commerical jet just above light pole height) when in fact he saw nothing.

The clarion call of "no one saw a flyover" of the Boeing Impact Theorists (which presumably your attempt to strike Roberts from the record as a witness is a part of) does not of course prove anything; someone not seeing something does not prove it was not there - they could just not have seen it.

Conversely, to claim that someone who said they saw something, especially something so unmistakable as a full sized commerical airliner, when in fact they saw nothing, is far more serious claim.

It implicitly states that the witness in question is either insane or a liar, since such a sight would be impossible to simply be mistaken about. Which claim is it you are making in the "valiant" defence of your rapdily dying Boing Impact Theory?

QUOTE

You falsely claim that Roosevelt is a witness for flyover when he clearly is not.

What is it you are going to describe him as then, a mad man or a liar?

Posted by: StefanS Nov 12 2009, 06:41 AM

QUOTE

Why are we providing a platform for this lame semantic BS?

Because this is exactly what we want. We want people who reject solid evidence and research like this, and those who support the factions waging a propaganda war against it, to come to the table and show what they have. Most of them (understandably) don't want to debate it, they want to be able to propagandise against it while silencing dissent to their view. We should applaud Chris for having the guts to come centre stage and show us what he has.

And what does he have?

Roll Up For Chris's Brand New Pentagon Theory:

1. The witnesses in the local area did see the plane fly over the Annex and to the north of citgo.

2. The plane then hit the Pentagon causing no damage whatsoever to the inside of the building and very little to the outside of it, leaving no large debris at all.

3. The powers that be then staged Lloyde's taxi, staged downed light poles and staged a lot of damage inside the building to give the impression that the plane in fact flew on a slightly different flight path.

4. Roosevelt Roberts (and presumably all the people Eric Dihle spoke to) are either insane or liars.

5. Since we are talking about an area of air space from the Navy Annex to the face of the Pentagon, the divergance between these two flight paths brings no benefit to the powers that be. There is no possible gain to them faking it flying south of a gas station rather than north of it, in fact, as has been shown, their staging of these scene is easily rumbled by talking to witnesses as CIT have done.

5. There is no need to explain why they would do this - it's obvious they did because it would be crazy to think the plane didn't hit the building.

6. Flyover theory won't fly!

OK, so now we see what we are dealing with. Let him carry on, give him all the rope he wants and let him do with it what he will. All this does is provide the neutral with some options. We have Legge, Hoffman, Arabesque with the "go back to sleep and don't look at the facts - the boeing hit the pentagon from the south of citgo" theory, we have Chris's "Pointless faking of a slightly different flight path while plane really flew into the building causing virtually no damage" theory, and then we have CIT's theory.

I know which makes sense to me, but it's good to have some options.

Posted by: StefanS Nov 12 2009, 06:47 AM

QUOTE (chris sarns @ Nov 12 2009, 05:14 AM)

You are talking nonsense. What caused this damage, termites?

Are you saying the south approach would make this damage but not the north side approach?

If you are saying that neither path could make this damage then you have just admitted that the CIT investigation did not prove anything you didn't already know about the possibility of flyover.

Ah you've been drinking the "Beautiful Mind" koolaid. It's the power of suggestion Chris.

Take a look at the original photo. Now take a look at your version with the comical coloured lines tracing a plane.

How did the "researcher" responsible for these lines come up with them?

Looking at the naked photo do you really see this pattern of damage? Half of where "damage" has been claimed is obscured by smoke and shadow. This is exactly what popular mechanics did when they claimed that every part of WTC7 that no photograph existed of had been "scooped out" - a claim which didn't make it into the final NIST report on the matter. I wonder if anyone has followed up with them on whether they will release the photos they had of this now the investigation is finished?

A plane shaped series of rectangles is placed over a photo of the pentagon and challenges your mind to agree that it is outlining a damage pattern, which if you look at a photo without the plane silhouette is simply not there.

Posted by: painter Nov 12 2009, 01:55 PM

QUOTE (chris sarns @ Nov 12 2009, 02:14 AM)

Are you saying the south approach would make this damage but not the north side approach?

If you are saying that neither path could make this damage then you have just admitted that the CIT investigation did not prove anything you didn't already know about the possibility of flyover.

Don't tell me what I'm saying, Chris, since you are obviously clueless. The CIT investigation proves there are multiple, credible witnesses who saw a plane on a flight path that is not only inconsistent but completely irreconcilable with the physical damage found outside and within the Pentagon. Several of them indicate the plane was banking to the right as it approached. There is absolutely no evidence of an impact by a plane on the NOC approach path and especially not one banking to the right. ZERO. You, on the other hand, are grasping at straws, semantic and otherwise, because you aren't willing to accept that you have nothing and have contributed nothing to our understanding of the events at the Pentagon on 9/11.

Posted by: aerohead Nov 13 2009, 10:45 PM

HAHA !! nice cartoon there

BTW the 757 tail is 45 feet from the ground.But not strong enough to break those windowsor leave a mark where you put your imaginary one.

Could you atleast put some imaginary marks on the lawn to support your theory ?

Posted by: chris sarns Nov 14 2009, 04:35 AM

QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Nov 10 2009, 09:31 AM)

Chris, please keep your insulting opinions to yourself. My next reply may not be so polite.

You might mention that to all the posters here who relentlessly engage in personal insults.

QUOTE

Chris, what caused this damage?

As I have said many times, we don't know. I offered a hypothesis that explosives did the damage to the exterior wall and blew the plane to bits. This cannot be ruled out. The damage is there and there is no crater. How do you explain the damage to the wall?

As for the interior damage, your theory requires explosives to do that damage, correct?

CIT claims that the north flight path proves the plane did not hit the Pentagon. This is not correct because it is aerodynamically possible for a plane on the north approach to hit the Pentagon. The explanation seems to be "no plane parts = no plane". That has nothing to do with which approach as it holds true for both approaches.

So how does the north approach prove the plane did not hit the Pentagon?

Posted by: chris sarns Nov 14 2009, 04:40 AM

QUOTE (painter @ Nov 10 2009, 05:55 PM)

The CIT investigation proves there are multiple, credible witnesses who saw a plane on a flight path that is not only inconsistent but completely irreconcilable with the physical damage found outside and within the Pentagon.

Posted by: painter Nov 14 2009, 04:44 PM

How do you explain no engines? How do you explain virtually no debris at all? How do you explain NONE of it positively identified?

How do you explain 3 steel structures collapsing at near free-fall?

Posted by: tnemelckram Nov 14 2009, 05:52 PM

Hi Painter and Chris!

1. Painter said:

QUOTE

How do you explain 3 steel structures collapsing at near free-fall?

Quite correct. And at a minimum, AE911T has demonstrated that a CD is the most likely explanation for the 3 WTC collapses (IMHO they do much more than that and actually prove a CD but I'm being generous and using the "most likely" standard for the sake of argument). But once you accept that something is likely wrong at the WTC, it follows that the same is likely true (or again IMHO certainly true) at the Pentagon.

Not quibble with you my friend, but what's important at the WTC is not the free fall itself but what is required to produce a free fall. That requires the (1) simultaneous; (2) symmetrical; and (3) properly sequenced and (4) properly timed removal of of the supporting structure. Those four things can only be achieved through a deliberate plan. A CD is the only known thing that is designed for that purpose. All this together makes any other explanation of the WTC collapses impossible (which is why I say AE911T has proven it).

2. Once you accept the above about the WTC and that there is a rat there, you have to approach the Pentagon thing with the attitude that you are looking for the rat at the Pentagon. Chris doesn't do this. CIT correctly does and through hard work has found a rat. In this case I don't buy the argument that if you start out looking for a rat that initial bias will lead you to certainly find one. That's because there's good reason from the WTC for your initial bias (justifiable suspicion is probably a better word for it).

3. I do see one germ of truth among all the things that Chris says. He seems to point out that CIT's evidence is not direct proof, but only supports an inference, of a fly over, a bomb causing the damage, and one plane. If that's what he's saying I agree with him to a limited extent. The NOC witnesses and Roosevelt do not provide a continuous observation of one plane flying over; instead the NOC people support one plane flying toward the Pentagon, Roosevelt supports one plane appearing on the other side, while all support an explosion. So you start with CIT's evidence as very strong support for that inference. Then the question becomes whether it also supports an inference that there was not a fly over. I am not aware of any other such inference, so the reason I accept CIT's fly over conclusion is the lack of any other explanation that accounts for their evidence. There's a subtle distinction between direct proof and proof by a sound and logical inference that with equal force rules out any other inferences. We have to keep that in mind here.

Posted by: chris sarns Nov 14 2009, 10:24 PM

Chris: How do you explain the damage to the exterior wall? How do you explain the interior damage?

QUOTE (painter @ Nov 12 2009, 08:44 PM)

How do you explain no engines? How do you explain virtually no debris at all? How do you explain NONE of it positively identified?

How do you explain 3 steel structures collapsing at near free-fall?

That was a non answer. You will not acknowledge this simple fact:

Your flyover theory requires the damage to the Pentagon be caused by explosives.

The lack of plane parts was already known and north/south path makes no difference.

The north path does not prove flyover any more than the south path.

Posted by: StefanS Nov 16 2009, 04:09 AM

[NB. Chris, I withdrew this post as on reflection I felt I was getting irritable in my tone and it wasn't called for, this is the re-write, I think it's a bit clearer now what I'm trying to say. I see you've responded to my previous post already, never mind...]

Chris,

First off, can I thank you for having the stones to actually come and expose your views, most people who reject the fact that the plane cannot have hit the building refuse outright to properly expose their own explanations for the evidence, and prefer to snipe and propagandise from forums they ban all dissenting views from.

Part of the reason they avoid open debate and outlining their own views, is there are few ways to reject this evidence without sounding completely insane.

The most common tack is to deny the witnesses show a north side approach. This obviously leaves very few alternate theories regarding these witnesses. Since the only reasonable explanation for over a dozen people's testimony containing details which confirm one another is that these corroborated details relate to what actually happened, if the theorist wants to reject this clear conclusion they are left with:

1) All these witnesses are agents who are "in on" the cover up and therefore complicit in the attacks of 9/11 and the murder of almost 3,000 people;2) These people are all mistaken in such a way as to corroborate one another.

Now since one tack is to call innocent people proxy-murderers and the other is to make a statement so out of whack with reality and probability that the proponent of the view would appear to be a lunatic, it is not surprising that the only way the detractors have managed to get anywhere in this "dispute" is to isolate themselves from anyone who disagrees with them and throw mud from afar.

You are a little different and should be given some respect for that, and as frustrating as your merry-go-round logic is, I'm calling on others here now to be patient and civil with you. You have come to debate, and you have avoided the "lunatic" pit-falls by accepting that the plane must have flown north of Citgo. The problem is with your follow up theory.

If I get this right, you are suggesting that the plane did fly from the north path but then drove into the building and at the same time it, and the interior of the building was blown up to create a damage pattern that would suggest it flew in from the south of Citgo. At the same time, the light poles were staged and Lloyde England's taxi was too, just to make sure that everyone thought it came in from the south. Please correct me if I'm getting this wrong...

OK so now we have two competing stories - both include a flight path and damage being faked, but the difference lies in the logic behind staging such a scene or in one case lack of it.

CIT's theory:The damage was faked to make it appear as though the plane hit the building.

Your theory:The damage was faked to make it appear as though the plane hit the building from a slightly different angle than it actually did.

Now Chris, I'm not going to say that your theory is inconceivable, but it is so blindly odd that I would require a great deal of evidence to even consider it. You are offering us none.

On the other hand, CIT have provided us not just with Roberts, but also Dihle's audio, the second plane cover story, the E4B, and how press reports based on proven untruths from figures like Wheelhouse could be used to perseude flyover/away witnesses to rationalise away what they witenssed.

In short, the have offered us a theory and done a lot to provide us with evidence in support AND there is actually a point to it.

You are offering us a theory and have presented us nothing to show it did happen AND there is no point to it whatsoever.

If the plane did hit the building, what exactly is the benefit to faking it coming south of a gas station rather than north? Faking an internal NE pattern of damage rather than the south east pattern of damage it would have caused had it not, in your theory, just been blown up?

From the official flight path, it could just as easily have ended up north of the station rather than south. It would be a fine detail that changes nothing fundamental about the gov. claims about where that plane flew in (which CIT have also shown are utterly false). In fact the only thing that shows deception at the Pentagon IS this faked damage! You want us to believe that they gave themselves an achilles heel for no good reason?

Really, put your logic in gear Chris, just for a moment. If the plane had flown from the north path and then hit the building BUT they had not staged the lightpoles or the inversed internal damage - there would be nothing solid for researchers to pick at regarding the Pentagon at all.

If you really believe this - try harder to show us that there is a single reason for us to take it seriously.

Your theory requries me to believe that for no apparent reason they gave the gave the world proof positive of a deception they did not need to carry out.

And it has been exposed; CIT have done the leg work to get out there into the field and bring the evidence back to us. In these circumstances it is not CIT you should be suspicious of, it is the people who seem to have nothing to do with their time but try and convince you to be suspicious of CIT who themselves must have their motives questioned.

Posted by: chris sarns Nov 16 2009, 06:33 AM

QUOTE (StefanS @ Nov 14 2009, 07:09 AM)

The fact that the damage must have been caused by something other than the plane (explosives/incendiaries/combination/some other material) is pretty obvious.

Incorrect.The interior damage being caused by explosives does not preclude a plane hitting the building. The damage to the exterior wall could be a combination of explosives and the plane hitting. It cannot be said for certain that a plane did not hit the Pentagon based on the damage.

QUOTE

You're confusing issues, the lack of large parts of airliner debris is not directly to do with flight path but certainly worth considering when judging whether or not a plane hit.

Correct. A lack of parts is a separate matter and applies to the north path as well as the south path.

QUOTE

It's not conclusive but is certainly one aspect that adds weight to the case before even considering witnesses. Once the witnesses prove that the plane didn't hit, the two evidential issues combine and explain each other.

You are using circular logic. A is true because of B because B is true because of A, and the witnesses are either lying or delusional.

The witnesses did NOT prove that the plane did not hit, quite the opposite, they said they saw the plane hit the Pentagon. There is no way they could be deceived about seeing the plane hit the Pentagon.

QUOTE

Everyone here understands perfectly well that the north approach shows the plane did not impact.

How? What is your proof? No plane parts? That has nothing to do with the approach.

P4T proved that a plane on the north path could hit the Pentagon.

The 4 CIT witnesses who could see the Pentagon said it hit the Pentagon.

I'm not saying a plane hit the Pentagon. We wont know for sure what happened until there is a real investigation. I'm only saying that the north path does NOT prove the plane did not hit the Pentagon.

You can talk in circles all you want. Few outside your circle will be fooled and you will only make a fool of yourself with your circular logic and inferring your witnesses are lying or delusional.

These are the tactics of our opponents.

Posted by: rob balsamo Nov 16 2009, 06:46 AM

QUOTE (chris sarns @ Nov 14 2009, 04:35 AM)

So how does the north approach prove the plane did not hit the Pentagon?

Chris, the above interior damage angle is not consistent with an aircraft impact from the north approach. If the south path physical damage was staged AND an aircraft hit from the north approach, much more damage to the pentagon would be observed and recorded, and at different angles.

I understand your theory for a lack of damage angle consistent with the north approach is due to the aircraft exploding into millions of pieces just prior to impact? If so, I suppose Craig's question is very valid, where is the crater in the lawn? Also, if it exploded just prior to impact, it did not impact.

Bottom line, the observed aircraft approaching from the North of Citgo did not cause the physical damage observed at the pentagon. The lack of physical damage consistent with a North approach impact angle concludes an aircraft did not impact the pentagon from the North of Citgo. This is why you have zero support for your theory and why even those who support the govt story do not offer such an absurd theory.

Posted by: StefanS Nov 16 2009, 07:15 AM

QUOTE (chris sarns @ Nov 16 2009, 06:33 AM)

Incorrect.The interior damage being caused by explosives does not preclude a plane hitting the building. The damage to the exterior wall could be a combination of explosives and the plane hitting. It cannot be said for certain that a plane did not hit the Pentagon based on the damage.

Correct. A lack of parts is a separate matter and applies to the north path as well as the south path.

You are using circular logic. A is true because of B because B is true because of A, and the witnesses are either lying or delusional.

The witnesses did NOT prove that the plane did not hit, quite the opposite, they said they saw the plane hit the Pentagon. There is no way they could be deceived about seeing the plane hit the Pentagon.

How? What is your proof? No plane parts? That has nothing to do with the approach.

P4T proved that a plane on the north path could hit the Pentagon.

The 4 CIT witnesses who could see the Pentagon said it hit the Pentagon.

I'm not saying a plane hit the Pentagon. We wont know for sure what happened until there is a real investigation. I'm only saying that the north path does NOT prove the plane did not hit the Pentagon.

You can talk in circles all you want. Few outside your circle will be fooled and you will only make a fool of yourself with your circular logic and inferring your witnesses are lying or delusional.

These are the tactics of our opponents.

First:

I'm going to say to you again what I've said before:

Chirs, you have been conned

It is not a "small circle" who understands the implications of CITs work - it is everyone I have shown it to, and outside of a very clique driven collection of websites, everyone in the online community as well.

Yes, there are a small number of people - Arabesque, Jim Hoffman, Victoria Ashley, Michael Woolsy, Frank Legge, John Bursil, Adam Larson, Eric Larson and their various (to be charitable) less than bright hangers-on and hero worshippers - who are being extremely vocal in opposition to this research. Since this, in reality, very small group of people have quite a large voice (911 research, truth action, 9/11 visibility, truthmove, and a lot of influence on blogger) they have done quite well to create the appearance of a mass-rejection of this work that weaker minded people will take on face value. Get out into the world and try and find someone who does not get what happened after watching NSA - and I mean non-"truthers" as well as campaigners - you'll find it quite a task. It is clear cut non-ambiguous research. Unless you have a reason not to want to believe it (say, maybe, the knowledge that people you look up to would turn against you if you spoke in support of CIT), and therfore set about creating utterly bizzare replacement theories, it is easy to conclude that the plane did not hit the Pentagon.

Second:

Please look up "circular logic" - it doesn't mean what you think it means.

I was simply saying that while the lack of damage does not prove no plane hit, and does not prove anything about a flight path, it is clearly unusual and is a cause for proper investigation of the case of the Pentagon. When that research turns up the eye witnesses who demonstrate that the plane didn't hit the building, the lack of damage is explained.

Posted by: chris sarns Nov 16 2009, 08:03 AM

QUOTE (StefanS @ Nov 14 2009, 10:15 AM)

First:I'm going to say to you again what I've said before:Chirs, you have been conned

Yes, but I got over it when I found out that CIT lied about there being no south path witnesses and claimed there were flyover witnesses when there are none. Leaving out the clear and unequivocal statements by the witnesses who said the plane hit the Pentagon is patently misleading and dishonest.

QUOTE

It is not a "small circle" who understands the implications of CITs work - it is everyone I have shown it to, and outside of a very clique driven collection of websites, everyone in the online community as well.

Where besides here and CIT?

QUOTE

Get out into the world and try and find someone who does not get what happened after watching NSA

CIT misrepresented the evidence and uses circular logic to claim the north path = flyover. They assume their primary witnesses are lying or delusional. When people find out about the lies and deceptions they will change their minds about flyover and CIT.

QUOTE

I was simply saying that while the lack of damage does not prove no plane hit, and does not prove anything about a flight path, it is clearly unusual and is a cause for proper investigation of the case of the Pentagon.

P4T proved a plane on the north path could hit the Pentagon. There are NO no flyover witnesses. There are 3 CIT witnesses who saw the plane hit the Pentagon and 1 who said it flew into the Pentagon and collided. That witness also said the plane DID NOT FLY OVER the Pentagon. He had a clear view.

CIT has proven beyond a reasonable doubt [if you believe the witnesses] that the plane flew over the Naval Annex and hit the Pentagon.

Posted by: StefanS Nov 16 2009, 08:34 AM

QUOTE (chris sarns @ Nov 16 2009, 08:03 AM)

Yes, but I got over it when I found out that CIT lied about there being no south path witnesses and claimed there were flyover witnesses when there are none. Leaving out the clear and unequivocal statements by the witnesses that the plane hit the Pentagon is patently misleading and dishonest.

How did CIT "lie"? They produced short films of their ecounters with Lloyde and Wheelhouse and publicised everyone they spoke to who indicated a south path, analsyed their testimony and offered their opinions on it. You might not agree with their analysis of these witnesses, but they certainly did not hide their existence let alone lie about them.

And they didn't "leave out" that Lagasse, Boger and Brookes thought the plane hit the building - they've been explicit about that fact from the start.

QUOTE

Where [do people support CIT] besides here and CIT?

Everywhere, most notably the real world. Besides, people come here because they support this research, they don't support this research because they come here. I was a poster a Truth Action forum when I came to understand the implications of this work.

QUOTE

CIT misrepresented the evidence

How? Every interview they have done is out there for you to look at. If you have an alternate reading to it than they do, you're welcome to express that. From my perspective I think CIT are pretty spot on in their analysis 90% of the time, while you seem to be wildly off the target. But I'm not going to say you're "misrepresenting" as that implies dishonesty, and is therefore an un-called for accusation. Keep it civil.

QUOTE

and uses circular logic to claim the north path = flyover

No, they use logic. Blindingly simple logic which only you seem unable to grasp.

Evidence CIT uncovered:

1. There was undoubtable a large jet plane in the area, flying low towards the Pentagon2. It was undoubtably on a path completely incompatable with the damage to the lightpoles and the interior of the Pentagon.

CITs conclusions:1. The plane did not cause the damage, therefore the damage was staged to make it look like the plane did cause the damage.

And at this point you still agree. But CIT concludes:

2. This was because the plane did not hit the building.

Wheras you plump for:

2. This was because they wanted people to think the plane hit the building at a slightly diferent flight path that would make no difference to the official story whatsoever.

Now just based on simple logic CIT's theory is more believable. Beyond this, they have done the leg work to validate this hypothesis with the material regarding Roberts, Dihle, Wheelhouse and the part he played in the "shaddowing plane", the sequestered 9/11 calls. They have put together a body of supporting evidence which they present while they present their hypothesis.

Your theory, by contrast, seems to work on the basis that "it's physically possible, therefore it happened". While the physically possible part can be debated, there needs to be a reason to believe something happened, almost an infinite amount of fantastical and unlikely things are "physically possible" but we don't believe those do we?

QUOTE

and assumes their primary witnesses are lying or delusional.

No. It assumes they were deducing or they were tricked. Neither would be contraversial in any way.

QUOTE

When people find out about the lies and deceptions they will change their minds about flyover and CIT.

Really? What lies? All you are doing is describing your lack of knowledge of the source material as "their lies" - CIT have been explicit and open about Lagasse, Brookes, Boger saying the plane hit. They've presented Roberts as a flyover witness and you say this is a "lie" - but to anyone else it's perfectly clear that this is what he is.

QUOTE

[Making circular arguments is] exactly what you have been doing.

Nope. Saying that one set of evidence (eye witnesses) provides an explanation for another anomaly (lack of damage), which in itself was a cause of investigation, is not circular logic. This is pretty standard investigation.

1. Lack of expected debris from a plane crash suggests there is something unusual and therefore an investiagtion starts.

2. Eye witnesses confirm a flight of the plane incompatable with that damage, demonstrating the plane did not cause the damage.

3. This shows why there is not the expected debris from a plane crash - the plane did not cause the damage in question.

This is a perfectly valid line of investiagtion.

QUOTE

P4T proved a plane on the north path could hit the Pentagon. There are NO no flyover witnesses. There are 3 CIT witnesses who saw the plane hit the Pentagon and 1 who said it flew into the Pentagon and collided. That witness also said the plane DID NOT FLY OVER the Pentagon. He had a clear view.

Yes. But it is perfectly conceivable that they were tricked. Where as your explanation is completely inconceivable.

QUOTE

CIT has proven beyond a reasonable doubt [if you believe the witnesses] that the plane flew over the Naval Annex and hit the Pentagon.

The witnesses cannot be expected to have a good recollection of a part of an event that lasted a second and included a huge explosion and fire ball. Their brains would be scrambled and their reactions coming straight from the "flight or fight" part of the brain. As Boger said - he hit the deck. Lagasse doesn't even know how he found himself ducked into his car, but thats where he was. People are at their least lucid in life-threatening or fear inducing situations.

Again, you are trying to play this like it is a logic puzzle, and this is your problem: We are discussing reality and we include in that human fallibility.

And when I place myself in the situation CIT describes as one witnesses experiencing - I am pretty much 100% certain I would flinch, duck, cover my face at the moment of the explosion and if I looked up and saw no plane, I am also sure I would be adamant that the plane hit the pentagon.

At the same time, I try and place myself in the mind set of the perpertrators carrying out the plan you describe, and it does not make a single bit of sense. I cannot conceive of any logical reason for what you are proposing, and that is a problem.

Since there is no evidence for you theory and plenty for CITs, it's kind of a closed case.

[Edited for clarity. S]

Posted by: rob balsamo Nov 16 2009, 08:35 AM

QUOTE (chris sarns @ Nov 16 2009, 08:03 AM)

P4T proved a plane on the north path could hit the Pentagon.

Chris, you keep repeating this as if our objective was to support your theory. Your implication is extremely unwelcome and our objective was nothing of the sort. You are being intellectually dishonest. Consider this your second warning. Your third and we show you the door.

An aircraft can hit the building from ANY approach. The pentagon is a very large building. When you start to consider variables (such as speed, obstacles, topography, type aircraft, damage reported and observed, damage angles... etc) is when the impact theory becomes more and more limited for a specific approach.

What we DID do, is prove the North Approach was aerodynamically possible as observed when taking all witnesses into account. We have also stated it is IMPOSSIBLE for the aircraft observed on the north path to have caused the physical damage as observed and reported at the pentagon.

With that said, simple math and reported damage/angles.. .etc... proves an aircraft did not impact the pentagon from the North Approach.

Now, if you have different reports which are consistent with a North approach impact, please provide them. Until then, there is no physical evidence of a northern approach impact.

Posted by: chris sarns Nov 16 2009, 09:17 AM

QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Nov 14 2009, 09:46 AM)

Chris, the above interior damage angle is not consistent with an aircraft impact from the north approach. If the south path physical damage was staged AND an aircraft hit from the north approach, much more damage to the pentagon would be observed and recorded, and at different angles.

That is an assumption and I disagree. The plane was only going about 200mph or less. Don't make that claim with out a full impact analysis.

QUOTE

I understand your theory for a lack of damage angle consistent with the north approach is due to the aircraft exploding into millions of pieces just prior to impact?

No, upon impact. This cannot be ruled out.

QUOTE

Craig's question is very valid, where is the crater in the lawn?

I have answered this several times. There were 2 explosions that did the damage to the exterior wall. They did not leave a crater. It makes more sense that the majority of the damage was done by a plane colliding as that would not leave a crater. Flyover requires all the damage is the result of explosives and more likely to leave a crater.

QUOTE

The lack of physical damage consistent with a North approach impact angle concludes an aircraft did not impact the pentagon from the North of Citgo.

No it does not.

Explosives caused the interior damage in your theory. You believe explosives caused the interior damage so the plane on the north path does not have to account for the interior damage.

Posted by: rob balsamo Nov 16 2009, 09:31 AM

QUOTE (chris sarns @ Nov 16 2009, 09:17 AM)

Explosives caused the interior damage in your theory. You believe explosives caused the interior damage so the plane on the north path does not have to account for the interior damage.

Ok Chris, third warning. Enjoy your vacation. When you come back, please read the top of our home page, specifically the underlined sentence.

Posted by: Craig Ranke CIT Nov 16 2009, 01:59 PM

QUOTE (chris sarns @ Nov 16 2009, 02:17 PM)

No, upon impact. This cannot be ruled out.

"Upon impact" would mean that the plane would be still outside of the facade as it completely disintegrated from your bombs.(can bombs even do that? Hmmm maybe they were nano-thermitic bombs specially designed to disappear entire planes )

Not a reasonable consideration particularly since you are claiming this disintegrating plane would somehow be what caused the hole. (even though everyone who has studied this knows full well the hole only lines up with a south side approach)

It can't cause the hole by not exploding until after it enters and the notion that the impact wouldn't cause your super mega plane disintegrating bombs to detonate is laughable.

QUOTE

I have answered this several times. There were 2 explosions that did the damage to the exterior wall. They did not leave a crater.

Why would bombs inside the building leave a crater outside the building?

That makes no sense.

QUOTE

It makes more sense that the majority of the damage was done by a plane colliding as that would not leave a crater.

In your scenario the plane would have to disintegrate outside of the building at ground level.

This would leave a crater in the ground outside of the building where it disintegrated.

There is no way around it.

Your theory is sheer lunacy and it is entirely proven false by the physical evidence.

This is why nobody (including you) is stupid enough to actually publish an article making such a ridiculous assertion.

QUOTE

Flyover requires all the damage is the result of explosives and more likely to leave a crater.

Listen to yourself!

You are claiming that strategically placed bombs in columns and walls INSIDE the building would be more likely to create a crater outside of the building than an entire disintegrating passenger plane at ground level OUTSIDE of the building would!

You've lost it Sarns.

You have abandoned all logic and critical thinking while sacrificing your credibility as a means to "take one for the team" by attacking CIT.

Pathetic.

The funny thing is that nobody in your team is going to back you on your ridiculous disintegrating plane theory.

They are secretly laughing at you while no doubt encouraging you to continue since it involves attacking CIT.

Posted by: tnemelckram Nov 18 2009, 09:36 PM

Hi all!

1. This seems to be is Chris' problem.

CIT's proves a flyover/fly by drawing a powerful inference from a mosaic of facts that at the same time support no contrary inferences1. Chris tries to show that there is such a contrary inference while ignoring or stopping short of Roosevelt Roberts, although he is an integral part of CIT's factual mosaic. Roberts saw a plane flying on the other side immediately after hearing the explosion. Chris is trying to say that an inference other than flyover/flyby can be drawn from the CIT evidence, but he can't ignore this part of the CIT evidence in doing so. Any other inference has to take account of, and then be drawn from, all of the CIT evidence.

2. Chris does make a point about the building damage. IIRC the strongest word that CIT or PFT has used to account for it is that the damage pattern is "inconsistent" with an impact from the North Path. I agree, and think that any layperson who looks at it has to agree. But none of us are experts qualified to make a case that it is not just "inconsistent with" the North Path, but "impossible to reconcile with" the North Path. So we have to sharpen our position here. Here's what I suggest:

( a ) The ASME Building Study was done by qualified experts with access to the relevant information. That Report uses vague and doubtful language to associate the damage with the plane path. ASME says the patttern of toppled columns shows a path of "approximately 42 degrees" which kind of sounds like less than one degree margin of error if you focus on the number and not the deliberate use of the word "approximately". I think it belies any claim to precision, let alone one degree, because they do not state the span of numbers that they intend "42" to be "approximate" to2. Moreover, the Report just assumes that a plane was the violent force that toppled the columns and does nothing to rule out other violent forces such as explosives as the cause. In other words, this Report tries to sound like it is saying something but actually says nothing that is precise. Their "approximate" and our "inconsistent with" have one thing in common - they are precatory words - so their professional and our amateur claims are stated with equal force. I don't see how it proves CIT's theory "impossible" or is otherwise a factor that CIT has to deal with.

( b ) In any case, the building damage pattern is secondary and maybe irrelevant when you consider the entire CIT mosaic and follow it all the way through to Roberts. There's your flyover/fly by, regardless of what kind of damage the building somehow sustained. That damage wasn't done by a plane seen both coming before the explosion and going following the explosion, period

( c ) The government radar data (if it is to be believed) rules out any second plane that could have caused the building damage. The government has never collected any evidence and used it to make an official and express claim that there was any plane on the South Path that could have caused the building damage in the first place. Hi Craig! Me Craig

Posted by: albertchampion Nov 18 2009, 10:02 PM

Posted by: tnemelckram Nov 19 2009, 05:35 AM

Hi Al!

QUOTE (albertchampion @ Nov 18 2009, 10:02 PM)

never use the ASME as an expert source.

the ASME is as dishonest as NIST.

I agree. And I think it extends beyond their role in 911. Groups like these write Codes such as Building Codes which local governments then adopt in whole and impose on people. It is a great way for these organizations and their members to create business from those who sell the products and services needed to meet the Code requirements. I imagine there are a lot of kickbacks, hookers, golf outings and the like involved.

As to 911, I don't cite them as a source for what they say. I cite then as a source for what they don't say or say poorly or ridiculously. They usually don't say the things or provide the backup that GL's think they do.